- From: Herr Christian Wolfgang Hujer <Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:11:25 +0200
- To: glazman@netscape.com (Daniel Glazman), www-html@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Am Dienstag, 15. April 2003 11:53 schrieb Daniel Glazman: > Christoph Päper wrote: > >>22. I am still completely opposed to the l element. > >> The manipulation of this element in wysiwyg editors will > >> be too hard in comparison with the existing <br> in HTML4. > > > > OTOH the manipulation via DOM and CSS is much easier. What's more > > important? > > (a) the l element is purely presentational: it _is_ a line. It's not less > presentational than <br/>. <address> <l>name</l> <l>street</l> <l>city</l> <l>zip</l> <l>country</> </address> > (b) it is useful only when you have a list of adjacent lines. So it's > basically a list (ul/ol) with list items (li) having no marker and no > wrapping. Yes. But isn't <p>text<br/>text</p> always a list of adjacent lines? ;-) > (c) using ul/ol/li instead of l makes it MUCH easier to number > lines since you have a known container to reset the numbering. Yes, but that's not an argument against <l/> in general, only in some particular places. Still I consider <l/> more appropriate in many of these cases than <li/>. Imagine I want to number lines of code. I'd really prefer <p class="code"> <l>public class Hello {</l> <l> public static void main(String[] args) {</l> <l> System.out.println("hello, world");</l> <l> }</l> <l>}</l> </p> very much over the variant using <li/> because I'd consider the latter one as abuse of <li/>. And the container required can always be generated using a class. Bye - -- ITCQIS GmbH Christian Wolfgang Hujer Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter Telefon: +49 (0)89 27 37 04 37 Telefax: +49 (0)89 27 37 04 39 E-Mail: Christian.Hujer@itcqis.com WWW: http://www.itcqis.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+m/buzu6h7O/MKZkRAtwAAKCAEUt41QLTNqt28YfyUSKZC/n1sACbBXm/ t1F9flCLSs8zVzHqoPZduIk= =g3qM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 08:11:49 UTC