Re: lynx-dev <BR> does not accumulate

[Jason F. McBrayer]

>>>>> "LWV" == Larry W Virden <address@hidden> writes:

From> Philip Webb <address@hidden>
>> [ to remind everyone where we got to ]
>> today, i suggest there are  2  things to do.

>> first, i'm prepared to make my case to the authors of HTML 4.0
>> that they should amend their recommendations for <BR> in HTML 4.1 .

LWV> That seems like a good start.  However, if you cannot convince
LWV> them, then my vote is for lynx to stick to it's current behavior
LWV> as default and perhaps offer an option for your proposed
LWV> behavior.

(Lynx's handling of <br> is already configurable in lynx.cfg)

At least they should clarify what they mean.

My understanding is that the current lynx default is entirely correct:
multiple <br> tags do not imply multiple line breaks, for typographic
reasons.  A <br> is not a carriage return in a procedural markup
system, it's a line-break in a structural markup system.  The broken
behavior of the major browsers (and thus the pressure to have lynx
emulate them) is the result of the mistaken belief that html is a
procedural markup system.  Multiple <br>s should be collapsed, because
you can only break a given line once.

>> second, Lynx should now adopt the above behaviour in anticipation &
>> because we should try to make Lynx genuinely useful for ordinary
>> users.

LWV> We anxiously await your implementation of the code.

It seems to me to be a sample lynx.cfg (and possibly configure.in and
userdefs.h) change, since lynx's handling of <br>'s is already
configurable.  It might be nice to have a three-way option so that
<br><br> gives a linebreak and a blank line, but <br><br><br><br> also
gives a linebreak and one blank line, a behavior that is a reasonable
compromise between doing the right thing and working with broken
pages.

In my opinion, though, Lynx should default to upholding open standards
rather than trying to conform to the behavior of the Big (Broken)
Browsers, which are really for presentation in an entirely different
medium than Lynx.

>> generally, people who draw up sets of rules for other people to
>> follow need to have some sanction at back of them or they're
>> wasting their time.

LWV> Having source code implementation of what they mean also helps.

Amaya is the reference implementation of HTML 3.2; IIRC the
recommendations for what to do about <br> haven't changed between 3.2
and 4.0 (though I could be wrong about that).

>> HTML OTOH has no sanction of any kind, esp given the anarchy of
>> cyberspace,

LWV> I am uncertain what you are trying to convey here.  If by this
LWV> you mean there are no 'net police' ready to arrest someone who
LWV> violates the standards, then I agree that no sanction exists.  If
LWV> however you are saying that the W3C is not the formal standards
LWV> setting body for HTML, then I would disagree.

Quite so.  The "anarchy of cyberspace" has always been based on the
existence of formal standards.  Otherwise we're subject to the rule
of Redmond and Mountain View:  hardly anarchic in my opinion.

>> & can someone -- AG ? -- tell me how to contact the HTML authors?

LWV> The HTML authors are at www.w3c.org .  Go to that web site and
LWV> you will find the details of entering the newsgroup/mailing
LWV> list/forum whatever it is where HTML standards are discussed.

But please be polite.  The HTML standards are murky waters to swim if
you don't know much about SGML (I only know enough to know that I'm
not qualified to hold opinions on it).

-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jason F. McBrayer              address@hidden |
| The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must hide Yhtill   |   
| forever.                    R.W. Chambers _The King in Yellow_ |