[whatwg] Re: About XHTML 2.0

[Christoph Päper]

Matthew Raymond:
> Christoph Päper wrote:
>    If you're going to quote someone, don't remove portions of the quote 
> without indicating you have done so.

Please, I used "(...)" (because we were discussing semantics not CSS
capabilities) and the rest is just obviously shortened.

>> Yes. It's just like
>>
>>    Foo
>>    <br>
>>    Bar
>>
>> versus
>>
>>      Foo
>>    </p><p>
>>      Bar.
> 
>    The first would yield the following:
> 
> | Foo
> | Bar
> 
>    The second would yield this:
> 
> | Foo
> |
> | Bar

You are thinking way to presentational! Who says there has to be an
empty line (or a margin of 1em) between paragraphs? But if you like,
you can replace that instance of 'br' with multiple ones.

>> That's why I said that you could also use 'class' on 'p' instead of 
>> 'div' around 'p' to do the grouping.
> 
>    So now the web author not only am I forced to define sections and CSS 
> for the sections just to get a separator, but I have to give the 
> sections names as well...

No, you don't have to. You could class the sections /additionally/ or 
the paragraphs /instead/ (or additionally).

> If I want to treat a chapter as one big, flat section, and the only
> exception is where I have the separator, then it makes perfect sense.

We're running in circles. I can't see a semantical reason for doing so 
(i.e. nobody provided one) and thus don't see the reason for a 
'separator' (or 'hr') element type in XHTML.