[Standards-JIG] Re: XHTML further simplification

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Tue Sep 21 17:40:56 UTC 2004

Let me see if I can summarize....

In article 
<FOENKLDIMCIMONDFDEMKCEMHCFAA.ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk>,
 "Ian Paterson" <ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk> wrote:

> IMHO JEP-0071 may be simplified further. The changes below would all make
> implementation easier without reducing functionality.
> 1. The Text Module Profile should not include the <div/> element. For IM
> purposes <p/> is almost identical. The difference being that <p/> is more
> simple to implement because it does not allow the nesting of blocks. For
> example:
> <p>Nested paragraphs<p>like this one</p>are NOT allowed.</p>

I don't see consensus yet to remove <div/>. It seems quite useful to be 
able to do things like this (e.g., when quoting someone's previous 

  <p>You said:</p>
  <div style='padding-left: 5%'>
    <p>Here are the action points from the discussion:</p>
      <li>Remove whitespace preservation</li>
      <li>Retain <br/></li>
      <li>Use &#160; for non-breaking spaces</li>
      <li>Height and width RECOMMENDED for images</li>
  <p>That seems agreeable to me....</p>

> 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>

The consensus seems to be to retain <br/>.

> 3. Whitespace should not be preserved (see Business Rule 7) since this is
> NOT consistent with standard XHTML rendering. The sending client should
> always use <p/> elements to indicate line breaks. It may replace multiple
> spaces in user input with multiple non-breaking spaces ( ), or use the
> CSS padding-left property. For examples:
> <p>Name:   Macbeth</p>
> <p>Name:<span style="padding-left:2em">Macbeth</span></p>

The consensus seems to be that using <br/> and   is better than 
preserving whitespace, even though it violates the lazy programmer rule, 
because it is consistent with XHTML 1.0.

> 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.

The consensus seems to be to leave this at RECOMMENDED.


More information about the Standards mailing list