- From: Nigel Peck - MIS Web Design <nigel@miswebdesign.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 12:06:26 -0000
- To: "Alexander Savenkov" <w3@hotbox.ru>, <www-html@w3.org>, "John Lewis" <lewi0371@mrs.umn.edu>
I'd go for <l> because it's an element that I can see getting a lot of usage so best to keep it short. <section>, <blockquote> etc. won't get used as much so keep them long for readability. I would suggest the principle should be: Keep high usage elements short and low usage elements long so they are self-explaining. (Larry Wall quoted a very similar principle for the design of Perl but I can't remember where it originated from) >Today no one marks up "nd" in 2nd to be 'sup'. I do. My 2 cents Nigel MIS Web Design http://www.miswebdesign.com/ -----Original Message----- From: www-html-request@w3.org [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Alexander Savenkov Sent: 26 December 2002 21:26 To: www-html@w3.org; John Lewis Subject: Re[2]: XHTML 2.0 - <line> or <l>? Hello John, everyone, > Today we'd need to use br; l is a huge improvement because it's more > precise (the element contains a line of text, instead of being an > empty element that "forces a line break," or whatever it is the br > element is). The l element is also easily styled *because* of the > meaning it imparts that the br element does not. Is it > "presentational"? I don't know, I'd need to think about it more. But > it doesn't matter; either way, it belongs in XHTML. Sub and sup are > entirely presentational and yet still useful (and definitely not > meaningless). If we toss the l, sub, and sup elements, we'd need to > use span elements and classes instead--which do you think is worse? As for me, I guess <sub> and <sup> are worse. Today no one marks up "nd" in 2nd to be 'sup'. I guess French users (or whomever employs <sup>s) do the same. Once you need high quality typography please welcome stylesheet languages. > PS: I am completely behind the l element keeping its short name. So > long as the spec is clear, and it is, there should be no confusion. > Further, there are speed advantages for hand authors and size > advantages, which are especially remarkable with heavy l/line element > usage. Let's be logical. Speed advantages for hand authors make no sense since there are editors that complete your elements after you typed a few (or one) first letters. If you see this as an advantage why aren't you advocating <sec> instead <section> or <bq> instead <blockquote>? Best regards, --- Alexander "Croll" Savenkov http://www.thecroll.com/ w3@hotbox.ru http://croll.da.ru/
Received on Monday, 30 December 2002 07:06:38 UTC