Re: Horizontal rules

On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 12:30:11 -0500 , wrote:


>'display: block' was intended for blocks of content, not empty
>placeholders for borders.
>Likewise, borders are not content; they decorate content.  The 'border'
>properties were designed for this purpose.

True, it is "required" to keep HR in some way, if for nothing else to
satisfy this part of RFC1866 (the most close to a _standard_ we have for

  5.9. Horizontal Rule: HR
     The <HR> element is a divider between sections of text;
     typically a full width horizontal rule or equivalent graphic.

1) It does specify the HR to be a logical _divider_ between sections
   of text and I would say that most any markup language do need
   an element with that logical meaning attached to it, regardless
   of the client software that is given a go a the doc at any time.

2) It gives a "typical" rendering advice but does not write that
   in stone, since it mentions that "equivalent graphic" (to a
   full width horizontal rule) may be used instead.

It's easy to fall into the trap of believing that the empty HR element
is a presentational issue at first (I have done that too in the past so
I'm not trying to blame any one else for doing the same)

But from what RFC1866 says, it is not. There it is clearly defined as a
"divider between sections of text" and that is the logical and important
part of it.

>I agree with both of you:  a new property or feature is needed.

I'm not sure we need a new property, a new "feature" might be the way to
go though.

I would settle for _presentation_ of HR to be one out of a "generated
content" model, possibly paired with an allowed use of 'url(...)' if one
wants to bring that "equivalent graphic" in there.

Jan Roland Eriksson <>

Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 20:32:03 UTC