Re: more xhtml 2.0 comments

• From: Daniel Glazman <glazman@netscape.com>
• Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 16:21:22 +0200
• To: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
• CC: W3C HTML Specification Discussion <www-html@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <3E9C1562.8000206@netscape.com>

William F Hammond wrote:

>>>(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>
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, good example.
>


Well, from a semantic point of view, and it seems to me that's one of 
the goals of XHTML 2.0, that's more a disaster than a good example!

</Daniel>

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 10:20:52 UTC