- From: Tina Marie Holmboe <tina@elfi.elfi.org>
- Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 21:34:59 +0100
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Cc: jim@jimthatcher.com, David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:32:57PM -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> Actually, according to the HTML 4.0 specification it is incorrect HTML. (So
> is using tables to achieve layout effects, by the way.) Written into the
> Specification and published by the W3C, on the advice of the W3C
> members, several years ago now.
If you refer to the nesting of BLOCKQUOTE, then no - that isn't structurally
wrong per se:
<!ELEMENT BLOCKQUOTE - - (%block;|SCRIPT)+ -- long quotation -->
indicating that the BLOCKQUOTE element can hold block-level elements,
of which BLOCKQUOTE is one. Nested quotations are not illogical.
However, as the HTML 4.01 (being current and all) points out, the visual
formatting of quotations vary from language to language. Showing them
indented is *one* way.
Using BLOCKQUOTE as a means of *indentation* is putting the cart before
the horse though. 'Ident' is a visual effect, not a structure after all.
> The trick of placing a non-breaking space in a paragraph is to preserve
> correct HTML - as I recall, it is an error to have consecutive empty
> paragraphs.
From what I can remember, again not an error - but UAs can under some
circumstances ('should', even) collapse multiple whitespace into one (1)
whitespace. The 'non breaking space' character is not whitespace, however.
But: <p> </p> has no *logical* meaning, and definetly doesn't
produce the 'desired' layout. My 'why' should be read 'Why does Frontpage
use <p> </p> to produce a 'newline' when the BR element is there to
do exactly that ?'.
> (Netscape Composer, and Mozilla Composer, have the same kind of behaviour.
> Sigh.)
This doesn't surprise me; though hearing about Mozilla DOES make me just
a little bit sad.
--
- Tina
Received on Saturday, 13 January 2001 15:35:03 UTC