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

On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Jewett, Jim J wrote:
>> Automatic rebreaking of *any* kind of code doesn't
>> look like a good idea to me -- even with languages
> Even with plain text, automatic rebreaking is bad --
> for instance, it can mess up the ">" quote indicators.
> (And if you special case that, what about "Olaf >"?)

If you have *blocks* of text in which the newlines are important, then it
is preformatted text, and the <pre> element is relevant.

> 	(defun foo (x, y)
> 	   (+ x y))
> is much better than
> 	(defun foo (x, y) (+ x y))

But the latter is better than

       (defun foo (x,
  y) (+x y))

...which is more likely if an inline containing the above wraps.

> This isn't always so easy.  But even in the perfect world -- what is
> your intended difference between "code" and "pre"?

The semantics (code means, well, code, while pre just means preformatted
text block -- people have taken to saying


...when marking up block of code).

> A type of poetry defined largely by the metre; changing the
> line breaks would change the per-line syllable counts -- and
> cause it to no longer be Haiku.

This is what the XHTML2 <l> is for, of course. :-)

Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Monday, 12 April 2004 13:48:43 UTC