Re: [XHTML2] Unicode line and paragraph separators

Toby A Inkster <tobyink@goddamn.co.uk> writes:

> <div>
> 	Here is one paragraph.
> 	&ps;
> 	Here is another.
> 	&ps;
> 	<img
> 		src="urn:x-internal:test-image" 
> 		alt="Am I inside a paragraph?"
> 		height="10" width="10"
> 	/>
> </div>

I think the idea of using "&ps;" instead of <p> is bad.

Aside from the arguments against already given, I wish to point
out another: no name for &#8233 can be set aside in the XHTML
spec for use on the web.  (A name would be OK for inhouse use
of XHTML.)

As I understand things, the XML 1.0 (2nd Edition) spec,
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006 ,
at section 2.4 provides 5 named character entities: "amp", "lt", "gt",
"apos", and "quot".

In order for other character entities in an XML document to be
referenced by name rather than by code point, the entity name must be
defined in the document type definition of the corresponding XML
application.

Since section 4.4, XML Processor Treatment of Entities and References,
states that a non-validating processor (such as a browser) is not
required to retrieve an external entity, the use of a named character
entity such as "&ps;" is ruled out for XHTML since XHTML browsers are
not validating processors unless browsers are "required" to have
"canned" knowledge of it.

I suppose the specification of XHTML 2 could try to insist that
browsers must know something like "&ps;", but I hasten to point out
that there is already some contention among major browser sponsors on
whether a browser must know any of the root namespace vocabulary of
XHTML, i.e., whether XHTML among XML document types deserves special
treatment by browsers.

Thus, the foregoing example, should have been:

> <div>
> 	Here is one paragraph.
> 	&#8233;
> 	Here is another.
> 	&#8233;
. . .
> </div>

Using &#8233 instead of <p> is not a good idea.

                                    -- Bill

Received on Sunday, 6 April 2003 22:10:03 UTC