I am not at all sure which document you are referring to

here: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/ for instance I found:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-text.html#s_textmodule_issue_1


<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><bigger>"l element content model"
</bigger>compare this with:


<color><param>0000,5A5A,9C9C</param><bigger><bigger><bigger><bigger><bigger>8.3.
The
</bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></color></fontfamily><bold><fontfamily><param>Times New Roman</param><color><param>0000,5A5A,9C9C</param><bigger><bigger><bigger><bigger><bigger>blockquote</bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></color></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,5A5A,9C9C</param><bigger><bigger><bigger><bigger><bigger>
element</bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></color><bigger><bigger>


This element designates a block of quoted text.


</bigger></bigger>it is clear that there is an unrealistic expectation
of understanding placed on the reader.

The 8.0 section, if that is what it is, is not well laid out or clear
at all, and especially in comparison with say 8.1


Furthermore, it is very noticeable that xHTML is rapidly moving away
from the clarity which made HTML popular.

undoubtedly it is more powerful, but at what cost, are corporates to
be the only bodies authoring code?


so you will have gathered that where blockquote is better that bq so
line is better than l, imho.


After 4 years of badgering at WAI, W3C remains remarkably unable to
show what it attempts to explain.

by the way can someone post an example of its usage, I've not come
across it before. 


thanks and a vary merry xmas to you all


Jonathan<bigger><bigger>

<bigger><bigger><bigger><bigger>

</bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>


On Wednesday, December 25, 2002, at 05:02 AM, James Card wrote:


<excerpt>

On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 12:53:35 EST, <<SCJessey@aol.com> wrote:


<excerpt>I finally got a chance to look over the latest Working Draft
for XHTML 2.0 and I was disappointed to see that the <<line> element
has been altered to read <<l> instead.


Does anyone else think this is a bad idea?  On some text editors, it
looks an awful lot like the old HTML italic tag which will doubtless
cause confusion.

</excerpt>

No, I don't think it is a bad idea. When you have data that needs that
kind of markup you're likely to use this elemant a lot; I will
appreciate the brevity of <<l>, and its similarity to <<p>. The fonts
I use in my editors (and mail clients) have been chosen specifically
to provide clear distinction between "1", "l", "I", and "i", and
between "O" and "0".


-- 

James Card  --  http://home.inreach.com/jdcard/

I am, therefore. I think.


</excerpt>