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


On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 07:22:40PM +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> > I'm still in search of any example for either: - A situation where
> > something inside <code> (even in my broad defnition) is definitely
> > desirable to have normal line breaking rules appiled, or
> The word "normal" is questionable in the HTML context, due to Unicode
> breaking rules. The question only creates confusion. When I write,
> say, about the C language and mention a statement like a = b + c, I
> surely don't mean to prevent spaces from being replaced by line
> breaks, as you seem to postulate. There's no reason to prevent that,
> since in the C language itself, line breaks are permitted there.

Well, I wouldn't want to have line breaks in a mathematical formula or a
C code snipplet. It's considerably harder to grasp the meaning.

Maybe this is a matter of taste. But that's not really the point. Let's
assume I'd agree with your example, or we could find another one. This
doesn't really change anything. Having a behaviour that is desirable in
most cases, and there are a few cases where it isn't necessary (but
doesn't hurt either), this is certainly not an argument against making
it the default.

> > - A situation where something outside <code> (i.e. natural language)
> > definitely shouldn't have normal line breaking rules applied
> You didn't notice the examples I gave?

Well, maybe you didn't notice my replies. I've rebuked all of your
examples. There was exactly one that was actually natural language, and
this one was also caused only by wrong usage of Unicode.

The Unicode rules are designed to cover all cases of natural language.
Again, if you really happen to find a situation where they cause
incorrect behaviour, that would be a bug in Unicode and the issue should
be raised there.

> Besides, not everything outside <code> is natural language. For
> example, mathematical expressions aren't. You are making your own
> rules if say they belong inside <code>

Yes. Because it makes sense. Maybe "code" is not the best term for the
broader meaning I'm proposing. If you have suggestions for a better
name, please go ahead.

(Personally I think <code> is quite OK.)

> In most cases, for example, removing paragraph structure would not
> change the fundamental meaning of text. Actually, it is difficult to
> construct a case where it would. Should we deduce that <p> elements
> are presentational only?

Oh please, get serious again. Do you really believe that absurd
comparisions will convince anyone here?


Received on Friday, 9 April 2004 09:35:40 UTC