Re: Quick Question on <Hn> and <HR>

Paul (
Fri, 29 Apr 1994 11:38:57 +0100 (BST)

@ I am afraid that I don't agree with you, even on the aesthetics
@ of your example. Look at printed books and how they give chapter
@ headings. White space is used liberally to set off the heading.

Okay, just a quick counter. I have just pulled out my copy of the HTML
(not HTML+) specification by TBL. This has a page of the form:

Low_Level header - e.g. document name


lots and lots of text
so that you use up a
few lines

page number etc at the foot

(I know this could be done many ways, but using headers also allows for
some structure in the document)

It would be nice to be able to define the headers and footers in <H#>
style and still have the <HR> close to the text is what I am getting
at. And like you say:

@ I do agree that authors should have more control over appearence
@ and consequently have added alignment parameters to headings and
@ paragraphs in HTML+.

*nod* I know. What I am trying to say is why not just go this simple one
stage further. I know Martijn Koster is "worried" about this being a
client side issue, and to a large extent I do agree. But the client
needs some help, and depending on the context the positioning of that
line can make all the difference. I cant think of any now, but I had two
examples in mind earlier, if I remember them (I know I should have
written them down then and there :) Ill let you all know...

@ Other ideas are under consideration e.g.
@ the paragraph style, the font names (as URNs of course) and text
@ and background colours (and texture), and margins.

My big worry here is that this may prove to be "complicated" I guess.
What I am suggesting is a reasonably simple change at the DTD level that
could provide quite a big change at the rendering level, and enable
roughly the same HTML (moving one line inside or outside a header) to
convay 2 different contexts.

Under the "proposed" method I think for what I have seen you would need
to set up a paragraph style just for that header type, which seems a
little bit of a waste to me when you could do it with just a small
change to the DTD :) I know its a flexibility/presentability against
SGMLS style conformity thing though.

It really is only just a thought that I came up with the other day
having seen how many of my documents use the trick, and whilst coverting
a specification over I realised may not be valid HTML/HTML+. And like
Chris Lilly says, its a trick a lot of us are using, and can make things
look just that little bit better, so why not make it more "official"
since we are back-incorporating some of the tricks :)

*hrm* Im wondering now how many other little "tricks" are invalid that
most of the clients allow :)

| Computer Centre, Brunel University, Uxbridge, Middx., UB8 3PH, ENGLAND. |
|___VOICE:_+44_895_274000_extn_2391_______EMAIL: __|
| |