Re: more xhtml 2.0 comments

Etan Wexler wrote:
> Daniel Glazman wrote to <mailto:www-html@w3.org> on 14 April 2003 in "more
> xhtml 2.0 comments" (<mid:3E9A73B6.4040708@netscape.com>):
>> 
>>28. in the spirit of XHTML 2.0, the pre element should not exist.
> 
> I agree. The 'pre' element type is presentational.

I disagree. 'pre' means preformatted (read: previously formatted), not
"preserve line breaks". If the content is indeed previously formatted,
then there's no reason why it should not be explicitly marked as such.
Take, for example, this page:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2002Nov/0028.html

The body text of that email is preformatted: I formatted it as
plaintext before sending it to the list. You cannot mark it up
any other way. To write a script that wraps each line in <l>
would be wrong, as the line breaks are a result of word wrap,
not a logical break in the text. To put each visual block in a
paragraph would also be wrong, because some of these blocks may
not be paragraphs; there's no way to tell without having a human
actually re-format the email as HTML.

~fantasai

Received on Sunday, 20 April 2003 14:32:12 UTC