- From: Jim Dabell <jim-www-html@jimdabell.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 20:45:28 +0100
- To: www-html@w3.org
On Monday 07 Apr 2003 6:10 pm, Philip TAYLOR \[PC87S/O-XP\] wrote: > There is little doubt in my mind that even the most pure of purist > logical markup advocates have, somewhere in the deepest recesses > of their minds, some anticipation of how their carefully-marked-up > text will appear after styling by some rendering agent. My position is that styling is a valid use of the semantic information provided by good markup. There's nothing "dirty" about including extra information to help that process along :) > Thus I would support > M. Cline's argument that <sentence> ... </sentence> is arguably > as important as <p> ... </p>, even though HTML has ignored the > concept ever since its inception. I would say that yes, it is as important as the <p> element. However, there are different costs associated with the two elements. I expect that the markup of sentences would be far less popular than markup of paragraphs. From a coding perspective, it's a large amount of bloat for the average page, and a lot of typing. From a visual viewpoint, not being able to distinguish between different sentences may have a _slight_ effect on readability, but nowhere near as bad as if you didn't have the <p> element. From an authoring tool point of view, you can automatically detect when the user wants to begin or end a paragraph with a double newline (for better or worse). It's less easy to do this for sentence elements. From an accessibility point of view, it may be beneficial to aural user-agents, as they could insert small gaps between sentences. I think that, should a <sentence> element be added to XHTML, it would not be very popular. However, there are currently other elements in XHTML that are highly specialised, such as <var>, where the same arguments can be made, and there are other elements that could be included that would be far more popular and appropriate for the medium (what about <email>jim@example.com</email>?). -- Jim Dabell
Received on Monday, 7 April 2003 15:46:31 UTC