Re: Fw: Disturbing trend in tables

No, I refer to the use of blockquote to provide and indenting effect. But I
checked, and although it is deprecated it is not explicitly prohibited:

The usage of BLOBKQUOTE to indent text is deprecated in favor of style sheets

(It makes sense that a quotation might itself include a quotation...)


Charles McCN

On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Tina Marie Holmboe wrote:

  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>&nbsp;</p> has no *logical* meaning, and definetly doesn't
    produce the 'desired' layout. My 'why' should be read 'Why does Frontpage
    use <p>&nbsp;</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.

Charles McCathieNevile    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative            
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
until 6 January 2001 at:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Saturday, 13 January 2001 19:46:53 UTC