Re: <NOBR> - Returning to the question....

>>But <symbol> would be a much nicer container. Syntactic unit would also 
>I think Jukka is asking for a more generic element. <symbol> would be a 
>cool name for some things, but I think it would be quite a stretch to say 
>that a password is a "symbol".

This is another example of combining a whole series of cases into a single 
element. Perhaps <symbol> isn't the best choice, but nobr is definately 
declaring defeat. Perhaps <literal> would be a better choice. My point is 
that there is a set of semantic classes that will cover the behaviors we're 
looking to cover and will add meaning to the document. Remember that while 
visual representation is the primary use of the language and must be taken 
into account the point of semantic markup is to add value to a document. 
<nobr> doesn't add any sematic value to the document. In cases of pure 
presentation value, I think we should stick to <span style="">.

>I think that <code> element should be refined to *practically* mean <nobr> 
>in inline context and <pre> in block context. That should usually match the 
>content one thinks when marking something as "code". Jukka would probably 
>favor <nobr> and <pre> because that's what already existing browsers 
>already support. I don't like <wbr> because I think such things should be 
>handled on character level. The behavior of <nobr> (or equivalent) should 
>just be defined so that the special character would just work.

I'd also like to remove the <blockquote> and <blockcode> elements, replacing 
them with <quote> and <code> and contextual information. Styling information 
should be contextual (block versus inline) and I believe that this is both 
an HTML issue _and_ a CSS issue.

Orion Adrian

Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar  FREE!

Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 15:12:31 UTC