- From: Anne van Kesteren <fora@annevankesteren.nl>
- Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 10:07:00 +0200
- To: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- CC: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>, www-html@w3.org
Laurens Holst wrote: >> The semantics an element have don't have to relate to its name. >> Vertical languages can simply use <hr /> as its semantics are defined >> as that of a separator. > > they were actually getting a > lot of requests for a <vr /> tag from Asian users. I actually thought that was just a joke. Asian users can easily use the same element and have it presented otherwise. (Although CSS lacks some capabilities of expressing vertical text layouts and so does Unicode.) > I recall you > mentioned that the XHTML 2 spec was unclear about what specific > semantics certain tags were intended for. I have said so about a few elements (not tags), yes. However, that was mostly about the description of the element, not the naming. > <separator/> can just as easily be styled to look as <hr/> for > non-XHTML2 clients. And in practice it won’t be used that much anyway, > so it isn’t such a big deal. If visual browsers were the only concern, true. But just because you can style elements from an "unknown" namespace doesn't make elements backwards compatible. That's a myth. -- Anne van Kesteren <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
Received on Saturday, 4 June 2005 08:06:58 UTC