EOL without using <br />

In article Michael Rozdoba wrote:

Brian wrote:
Michael Rozdoba wrote:


As far as this discusion is concerned, I don't consider that
personally I have failed to take time to develop a mental picture,
even though mine is still far from perfect.


It is also likely to be misleading to the op.

My mental picture?

So when you make claims that it is "valid" to use meta http-equiv to
declare a charset,

I didn't make the claim. I participated in a discussion attempting to
discover the truth, during which I suggested, correctly, the the w3c
validator's output implied the above.

you're only clouding up the issue.

The truth sometimes does that, though not in this case, I suspect. And
when it does, personally I'd prefer not to pretend that reality is
simpler in order to reinforce a false model.

It isn't invalid to declare a charset in that manner. But it is
preferable to use real http headers instead of the "equivalent."

Which eventually came out in the discussion. I'm sure the OP was equally
able to gain from that, should they still be following the thread.

Alan Flavell wrote:

Note x-posting and suggested f'ups.


Michael Rozdoba wrote:

No.

I don't read that group.

That's nice.

Thank you. Your quoting of my post above, however, isn't. You've quoted
me out of context by failing to include, mention or respond to my
justification for the above.

*plonk*

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

Haines Brown <brownh (AT) teufel (DOT) hartford-hwp.com> wrote:

This I discovered this morning, and so I ended up with two ways to do
a menu-type list:

a) set the li attribute

ul { margin-left: -2.5em; } /* optional for flush left */
li.menu-list { list-style-type: none; }

<ul
<li class="menu-list">line 1</li
<li class="menu-list">line 2</li
</ul

Tim <Tim (AT) mail (DOT) localhost> writes:

Well that is a menu (looking) type of "list." It should work on all
browser, and look nicer on modern browsers.

Haines Brown <brownh (AT) teufel (DOT) hartford-hwp.com> wrote:

I'd have been happier had you left out the quotes. I believe the above
markup is in fact a list.

I don't know what you're complaining about. It is a "list," and it's
one that "looks" like a "menu." But I've already said that.

b) take advantage of <pre>:

line 1<pre> </pre>line 2

Which would just be some arbitrary text, and done in a very peculiar
way. I can't see how that's easier than: first line<br>second line
Or: <div>first line</div> <div>second line</div> Though both of
these still are arbitrary text (i.e. meaningless content).

The context is not ease of markup, but confronting the condition that
markup define the function of elements, not their style. Indeed, <br
/> is easier, but it is considered marginal because it is used to
define style (placement of the following text on a new line). I was
informed that the technically proper way to do that (other than the
list approach above) would be to use an EOL character, and my option
(b) is just an illustration of how that can be done. I don't recommend
it.

Please supply us with what you're informed about, to back that up.

A br element is a line break, the line ends there and a new one begins.
There's little semantic difference between a character as the end of a
line and a tag as the end of a line, other than a br element having a
*defined* purpose in HTML.

Using <div> would also certainly work, but then what is the function
of the text so divided? None, and so this option violates the
principle that markup not be used to set style. Indeed, you yourself
note that it and <br> are text-independent. However, thy are not the
same for I gather an EOL character (although its use is peculiar, as
you say) is technically correct. The "character" does not define
a style, but is a self-contained "character," much as < and & are
characters that don't define style, but serve as controls.

But you *are* proposing to use an EOL to "set a style," in just the same
manner: You're using the content to layout a page (you're not just
marking where an end of the line might be, you're trying to create a
line break on the page, there), that's not what HTML is all about. HTML
is used to delineate content, styles are used to layout the content, the
content is the content.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

I deduced that the most likely
explanation was that the hon. Usenaut had not tried to represent this
U+0085 control character as an actual coded character, but used an
ampersand notation.

And it actually fits the reported observations, too, nicht wahr?

Probably. Why didn't the OP provide a sample URL? <sigh>

--
Nicht's geht mehr ohne Apostroph.

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Tim wrote:

Haines Brown <brownh (AT) teufel (DOT) hartford-hwp.com> wrote:

http://www.univs-hannover.de/nhtcapr.../controls.html

That link doesn't work here (www.univs-hannover.de has no DNS answer
data, *and* that address it's missing the http:// protocol prefix).

Some people cannot even "copy 'n' paste" and retype URLs.
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/>
<http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/controls.html>

Haines Brown <brownh (AT) teufel (DOT) hartford-hwp.com> wrote:

http://www.univs-hannover.de/nhtcapr.../controls.html

Tim wrote:

That link doesn't work here (www.univs-hannover.de has no DNS answer
data, *and* that address it's missing the http:// protocol prefix).

Andreas Prilop <nhtcapri (AT) rrzn-user (DOT) uni-hannover.de> wrote:

Some people cannot even "copy 'n' paste" and retype URLs.
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp/
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht.../controls.html

Well, if you're referring to me retyping it, I'm not really interested
at playing guessing games with what URI someone really meant to post,
when they posted a broken one.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

Tim <Tim (AT) mail (DOT) localhost> wrote:

Haines Brown <brownh (AT) teufel (DOT) hartford-hwp.com> wrote:

http://www.univs-hannover.de/nhtcapr.../controls.html

Well, if you're referring to me retyping it,

Apparently not.

Andreas Prilop <nhtcapri (AT) rrzn-user (DOT) uni-hannover.de> writes:

Tim <Tim (AT) mail (DOT) localhost> wrote:

Haines Brown <brownh (AT) teufel (DOT) hartford-hwp.com> wrote:

http://www.univs-hannover.de/nhtcapr.../controls.html

Well, if you're referring to me retyping it,

Apparently not.

No, he's referring to this Klutz ;-(

When I view the page, I see (in galeon):

128 ?
129 ?
130 ?
131 ?
132 ?
133 ?
134 ?
....

Not sure what I _should_ be seeing.

--
Haines Brown
brownh (AT) hartford-hwp (DOT) com
kb1grm (AT) arrl (DOT) net
www.hartford-hwp.com

Haines Brown <brownh (AT) teufel (DOT) hartford-hwp.com> wrote:
[ http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nht.../controls.html ]

When I view the page, I see (in galeon):

133 ?
...

Not sure what I _should_ be seeing.

Well, it's OK. But you reported in an earlier message that you see
an ellipsis (...) for character 133. Presumably that was … .