fantasai wrote:
> Well, it /was/ structural markup.
> RFC 1866 -
> 5.9. Horizontal Rule: HR
> The <HR> element is a divider between sections of text; typically a
> full width horizontal rule or equivalent graphic. For example:
> <HR>
> <ADDRESS>February 8, 1995, CERN</ADDRESS>
> </BODY>
>
> On very few pages does <hr> appear merely for graphical decoration.
The overall problem with HR has always been the context of the word "structure". It IS
a
structural element in the layout of a visual page. Layout, after all, visually relates
content
organization, sequences, and structure. However, it is NOT a structural element in the
content
of a page. The boundries of the elements in which the two bodies of text reside define
the
division. Any other meaning to the division (like section, chapter, sequence, etc.) is
associated via other attributes designed for this.
In the original RFC, the difference between these two contexts was not well understood
and
hardly ever followed. This is what resulted in the HTML mess for which style content
and CSS was
designed. To separate the concepts of layout and content structure.
Mr. Clark would appear to be referring to content structure while fantasai would
appear to be
referring to the old layout structure references. Both are correct, but only in their
separate
contexts.
All that aside, I just want to see the rendering of the HR element, like any other
elment, to be
consistant with the intent of the current v4.01 and CSS2 specifications, and not have
any
technically allowable but maddeningly complicating or undocumented "magic attributes"
like
hard-coded top/bottom whitespace.
Unless, of course, someone comes up with a good reason why it was put in there in the
first place.
--
The Snake Pit - Development www.TheSnakePitDev.com
Curtis Clauson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proprietor
(Please respond to the newsgroup. To email me, use the above address.)
