[whatwg] [br] element should not be a line break
ian at hixie.ch
Mon Dec 6 17:31:31 PST 2010
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Christoph Päper wrote:
> Ian Hickson:
> > On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Thomas Koetter wrote:
> >> What strikes me though is that according to the spec "The br element
> >> represents a line break". A *line* break is presentational in nature.
> >> The break is structural, but restricting it to a certain presentation of
> >> that break lacks the desired separation of structure and presentation.
> >> Wouldn't it make more sense to consider the br element to be just a
> >> minor logical break inside a paragraph?
> > Calling it a "line break" doesn't say how it is rendered. It's just a
> > conceptual description.
> It presupposes the existance of lines, though. Lines are a very visual
> concept, although they can be applied to oral language, as in poems and
> songs (where ‘//’ is often an accepted representation for line breaks in
> transcripts). An oral line may span several literal lines and vice
Right. This is about "oral" lines (for lack of a better term), not the
> However, I believe the underlying problem is simply that “line break” is
> (too) often used and understood as a synonym for “new line”, at least by
> non-native speakers. Speaking of breaks on line or paragraph level
> therefore makes more sense to me.
I don't really understand the difference.
> > (A "minor logical break inside a paragraph" is not generally
> > represented by a line break, at least not in any typographic
> > conventions I've seen; usually, in my experience, those are denoted
> > either using ellipses, em-dashes, or parentheses.)
> That’s true for real paragraphs, but not for most “non-paragraphic”
> texts, e.g. addresses.
The lines in an address are separate "oral lines", not "minor logical
breaks inside a pragraph".
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg