Re: About XHTML 2.0

I mentioned this in another thread, but some books like Things Fall
Apart use these kinds of seperators to show a shift in perspective or
narrator. These notifications from the author are critical to
undestanding the text. Without them the reader would have been lost. I
do feel these lightweight seperators are critical. Now there are lots
of reasons why one would want to use this kind of seperator, but there
are so many reasons, it's unlikely the spec could actually specify
them all. They really do fall under the same classification as <sup>
and <sub>. Still <seperator /> is necessary.

Orion Adrian

On 5/22/05, Rimantas Liubertas <ic@rimantas.com> wrote:
> 
> Orion Adrian wrote:
> > This assumes that one, you want a horizontal line. Some seperators are
> > represented by lines of stars or tilde's.
> >
> 
> This is no problem at all.
> 
> > My rule of thumb is I should be able to write a document in HTML
> > without any CSS at all and still get the semantic meaning of my
> > document accross.
> 
> This is the only problem I see. however, "lightweight separator"
> is, uh, lightweight, so losing it without CSS won't be bigger loss
> than losing everything else you get with CSS.
> 
> > Above you're using CSS to create semantic meaning using presentation.
> >
> > So how would you represent a light seperator without CSS in a user
> > agent that doesn't support it? How would you represent it to a blind
> > user?
> <...>
>  > The rules of thumb I use are a) does this semantic element need to be
>  > conveyed to a blind person to get the meaning of the document. b) can
>  > this element be described in an aural way if it's visual or visual if
>  > it's aural. The strong element passes that test, but bold does not.
>  >
>  > Orion Adrian
>  >
> 
> There was similar discussion on WHATWG, and
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Talks/04-19-steven-XHTML2-XForms/ (search for
> HR) was given as example.
> 
> I created http://rimantas.com/bits/hr/nohr.html as analog without
> using hr. I think it is still OK with aural stylesheet (lightweight
> semantics have been transferred to class attribute), but well,
> it fails in CSS off scenario.
> 
> I wouldn't say you convinced me that separate element for separator is
> needed, but I have doubts now, and some food to think.
> So far the only weak argument would be that semantic meaning of this
> element is so light it is ok to loose it...
> 
> Regards,
> Rimantas
> --
> http://rimantas.com/
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 22 May 2005 22:36:29 UTC