[whatwg] <p> elements containing other block-level elements
dolphinling at myrealbox.com
Thu Jul 14 17:38:01 PDT 2005
Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, dolphinling wrote:
>>>Other elements that I could see being nested inside a paragraph are:
>>> * <ol>
>>> * <ul>
>>> * <dl>
>>It's been said that no one will use these except people who write about
>>this kind of thing on their weblogs.
> Note that people who write weblogs are an important part of our target
> market, by the way. A minority in the real world but still an important
> one, because they are often at the cutting edge. If bloggers use a
> technology a lot, then it is quite likely that it will cause others to use
> it as well. (RSS is an example of this.)
(Minor point here: they'll pick up a new technology, but they'll still
be lazy in using it)
>>I think this is for a very important reason: people are lazy, and they
>>don't want to do any more than they have to to get the job done. In the
>>case of a paragraph with a list inside of it, *the semantics are
>>imparted by the natural language of the document*. If I write "...an
>>egg, flour, and butter...", I don't need to write <ul>, because it's
>>already a list. And since I don't need to, I won't.
> Absolutely. I totally agree. The main use case is for marking up cases
> where one would have written:
> <p>Bla bla bla:</p>
> <li>Bla, and</li>
> <p>...bla bla bla.</p>
> This is a structure I use a lot in e-mails, for instance. In this case, it
> is clear that the sentence spans more than one <p>, but the sentence is
> still just one semantic paragraph. Hence the list is in the paragraph, and
> thus the <ul> should be too.
Then what I said later applies: <p> isn't for marking up paragraphs. The
natural language tells the reader that it's a paragraph, so the markup
doesn't need to. The markup is for separating one block of text from the
>>As much as we tell people that "<p> doesn't mean 'line break', it means
>>'paragraph'!", that's not true. <p> doesn't mean "paragraph", it means
>>"a standalone block of text". This is true everywhere on the internet:
>>the w3c specs, the current work of the whatwg specs, my webpages, and
>>I'm sure the webpages of everyone else here.
> The current work of the WHATWG specs says:
> A paragraph is typically a block of text with one or more sentences
> that discuss a particular topic, as in typography, but can also be used
> for more general thematic grouping. For instance, an address is also a
> paragraph, as is a part of a form, a byline, or a stanza in a poem.
> ...which seems clear enough to me. Incidentally, this is an example of one
> paragraph, starting at "The current work" and ending at "in the middle",
> including the blockquote in the middle.
Without the content model change, that quote is good. If the content
model is changed, though, it would seem to give <p> two meanings: a
standalone piece of text, and a grammatical paragraph. Only the first is
what it should be; the latter is unnecessary.
>>P.S.: Sorry for being 3 months late to the discussion. I'm 600 mails
>>behind now, trying to catch up. Also sorry if this thread has come up
>>elsewhere, I didn't see it in the subjects.
> Don't worry. I will be returning to many of these topics once the WA1 spec
> is in more solid shape. At the moment I am attempting to flesh out first
> drafts for all the new features, so that I can get implementation feedback
> on those bits. As was requested by members of the list, I will only be
> returning to the more semantic sides of the discussion after the newer
> "applicationy" bits are written.
That's fine, take as long as you need (I certainly did). :-)
 I would prefer:
A paragraph is typically a block of text with one or more sentences, as
in grammar, but can also be any other self-contained block of text, such
as a sentence fragment, byline, or address.
...or something else including the lines "self-contained block of text"
or an equivelant.
More information about the whatwg