[Standards-JIG] Re: XHTML further simplification

Ian Paterson ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Tue Sep 21 18:33:58 UTC 2004


Peter wrote:
> 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
> message):
>
> <body>
>   <p>You said:</p>
>   <div style='padding-left: 5%'>
>     <p>Here are the action points from the discussion:</p>
>     <ol>
>       <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>
>     </ol>
>   </div>
>   <p>That seems agreeable to me....</p>
> </body>

Allowing <div/> would make it easier to generate the XHTML for indenting
blocks. However, it would also require more complex renderers that can
handle unlimited block nesting. A client could generate the same effect
(with only a little more work) using this XHTML:

<body>
  <p>You said:</p>
  <p style='padding-left: 5%'>Here are the action points from the
discussion:</p>
  <ol style='padding-left: 5%'>
    <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>
  </ol>
  <p>That seems agreeable to me....</p>
</body>

In the interests of keeping renderers simple, perhaps we should also
explicitly not recommend the nesting of block elements (<p/>, <ol/> and
<ul/>)?

Of course clients would not be able to offer nested lists (and <li/>
elements would contain <br/> but not <p/>). But those are not serious
concerns since the JEP is meant to address the styling of rapid-fire IM, not
the authoring of documents (which will be covered by another JEP or XHTML
profile).

I agree with the other parts of Peter's summary.

- Ian




More information about the Standards mailing list