[Standards-JIG] XHTML further simplification
trejkaz at xaoza.net
Tue Sep 21 14:18:04 UTC 2004
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:47, Byron Ellacott wrote:
> > 2. The Text Module Profile should not include the <br/> element. The two
> > examples below render identically with any combination of the Recommended
> > Style Properties:
> > <p>Line one<br/>Line two</p>
> > <p>Line one</p><p>Line two</p>
> Semantically, they are different things.
That pretty much hits the nail on the head. If we're going to pretend that
this is in the XHTML family, then a line break is definitely different from
having two paragraphs.
> You also cannot duplicate <br/><br/> with <p/> elements, since an empty
> <p/> element should be ignored, according to the HTML4.01 spec, upon
> which the XHTML1 specs are built.
Using <br/><br/> is bad style anyway. Why didn't you just end the paragraph
at that point? Is it really semantically the same paragraph even if the
reader is about to see a blank line before the other half of it?
> > 4. <img/> width/height should be REQUIRED not just RECOMMENDED since:
> > - "It gives the receiving application hints as to whether the image is
> > too big to fit into the current interface."
> > - The message can be displayed in the correct layout (with an image
> > placeholder) before the image file has finished being downloaded.
> > - Clients may decide to avoid downloading very large images.
> This puts an onus on the sending program to discover an image's
> width/height. A receiving program with limited screen space may choose
> to scale an image to a fixed size should it strictly require knowing an
> image's dimensions in advance. A sending program may not necessarily
> have the ability to establish image dimensions (eg, a URL that is not
> fetchable from the sending program, or where that image's dimensions
> change over time.)
I agree with this.
In addition to this, the following rather trite response could apply: "We're
using CSS everywhere else... aren't there width and height properties in CSS
At least that's what the W3C seemed to think... the width and height
properties are going away _entirely_ in XHTML2 (along with the <img/> tag
itself... but we can ignore this, since we seem to prefer <img/> to the more
useful <object/> here.)
And as for "Clients may decide to avoid downloading very large images", what a
load of rubbish. Anyone can say width="1" height="1" on the tag for a 1MB
image file... it doesn't make the file any smaller at all. ;-)
Email: Trejkaz Xaoza <trejkaz at xaoza.net>
Web site: http://xaoza.net/trejkaz/
Jabber ID: trejkaz at jabber.xaoza.net
GPG Fingerprint: 9EEB 97D7 8F7B 7977 F39F A62C B8C7 BC8B 037E EA73
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Standards