Why choose a paragraph element for a paragraph?

[dorayme]

It's often thought that this is the other way round, mainly because you
can do experiments to verify facts, but not to verify choice of things.

We *say* things like "experiments verify facts". It does not follow
there are facts.

For example, "the sun rises", understood as "rises as opposed to
doesn't" is a fact that can be verified.

Yes, this is how we talk. We can go outside and make some observations
to see if we can see anything that is or is not consistent with the
proposition that the sun has risen. There is nothing in this last
description to suggest we are hunting further things, facts.

But you might say it doesn't rise at all, it stays where it is, it's
just the Earth rotates. But if you do that you aren't really disputing
the fact, just proposing a change of basis-- you aren't really saying
the sun doesn't rise (nobody would dispute that) just that that's not
the best way of describing what's happening.

Well, people have and do correctly dispute that the sun rises. This does
not imply that there are other things that they do not dispute. It is a
dynamic business what the background agreements are among humans at any
one time and within any one community.

If you take a movie of the eastern sky at dawn and filter the movie so
it is cartoon shapes and show it to a jury and ask does the distance
between the yellow round shape and the black line grow in time, you will
get a predictable answer, "Yes". People dispute things most productively
when there are many things that they do not dispute. This does not mean
that there are facts. It means at least that they agree on lots of
things. I am not saying that the things people agree about are not true
or they cannot know it.

Be careful of the interpretation/given distinction. It leads to trouble
like solipsism. You end up with givens in the mind and it gets messy.

In the same way you can talk in terms of chairs and tables or in terms
of atoms or particles strings. The choice of terms is important for
understanding, and some choices are better than others, but "the world"
is just what makes some suggestions true and others false.

What makes some suggestions true and others false is how the world is,
true. That does not mean there are facts. It is an illusion that the
idea of a fact in any way explains or elucidates the idea of a
suggestion (to use your word) being true. Being true, arguably, is about
as primitive a notion as it gets. At least it is not illuminated by
supposing an ontology of facts.

This is what's meant by saying "The world consists of facts not of
things" (Wittgenstein).

The early, notebook-jotting Wittgenstein, in German trenches, did say
something like this, yes. It is part of a certain theory of language and
it gets complicated. Don't believe him though! Possibly unique in the
history of great philosophers, he went on from his days in German
trenches where the above comes from to the most radically different
position later.

[...]

To explain this idea of supervenience (well known and variously
controversial in other fields), I would need to know anyone was still
listening or interested!

Go on then.

Yes, this is an interesting matter and I will continue soon...

 

[dorayme]

But facts are quite often _defined_ as "true suggestions". (They don't
use the word "suggestion" but usually "statement" or "proposition").

Mostly people just talk with the word. It is hardly ever defined.

Just look at the uselessness of dictionaries:

"a thing that is indisputably the case"

What? There can't be facts that are not even considered by humans?

A thing? What were you saying about your leaning toward the idea of the
world consisting of things? A fact *is* a thing on this definition.

"a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news
article"

What, something false could be a fact? Don't worry, I know, it is an
example of usage, not deep or comprehensive or definitive! (A
non-definitional definition! <g>)

Your "facts are true suggestions" is fine for teaching people to talk a
certain way but it gets us nowhere on any deep questions.

I didn't think it explained it really, just that it was it.


Well the idea of an "ontology of facts" is mainly just to say that there
isn't an ontology of particular things.

But there is the *big* "except" that I mention above. You are getting
away from an ontology of things by substituting a special kind of
ontology of things, namely facts. It is not a way I would recommend to
go.

It is best not to think about facts much because it is big hoary mess!
That is what I think anyway. I use the word in English, but I don't lean
on it heavily in thinking about the world. And what can I say, I
recommend this attitude to all. <g/2>

 

[asdf]

Yes, I am worried about you son, really, you get tired easily, yawn
often. Are you getting enough sleep? Getting enough exercise? Eating
your greens? You need these things to be right to have a robust
attention span.

Get back to the topic? You cannot appreciate background info if you are
going to constantly jump to conclusions and taint the whole thing in the
middle. I asked you to expand on the idea of the incommensurability
between modalities.

Then why did you not make a complete argument in one post?

You show the jumpy characteristics of many fundamentalists whose
orthodoxy is being threatened. Not even simple things will they allow
without great suspicion if it is put forward by someone that seems to
threaten their comfort zone.

Utter nonsense.

Again, you seem content to obfuscate by attacking the player rather than the
ball.

Please provide clear cogent argument to support your case instead of these
demented (and rather long-winded) ramblings.

 

[dorayme]

leaning toward

should have read:

leaning against

 

[asdf]

Thank you Guy, a scholar, gentleman, mensch.

One of the things I was hoping to get across was a sense of the *scale*
of the incommensurability between modalities. (Why say something simply
when one can use big words).

In plain English, if I must, I was hoping to get across the
difficulties, sometimes insurmountable, of adapting *content* across
media. Anyone can see some superficial difficulties - and brush them
aside! It is the not so superficial ones that are of interest to me.

In plain English? That's just pomposity. I'd rather have clarity than
tortured, supposedly "impressive" prose.

Ok. So please please please, stop beating around the bush and get to your
point (assuming you have one).

 

[dorayme]

Then why did you not make a complete argument in one post?

Because you were not understanding the simplest things in my previous.
You were deciding that I was breaking the LAW and putting blind people
down and all sorts of other horrid and crazy things.

I was taking a line of trying to go slowly with you and get you involved
in the stages. I suggested a plan and you seemed to agree to it but then
almost immediately scuttled it with your inattention, carelessness, and
wilful disregard of the main rules designed to help us both.

Any other questions?

With you asdf, I am more concerned with simple mundane things like:

Son, are you eating your greens, are you getting to bed nice and early,
bathing enough, exercising, reading more wholesome books than those
boy's football comics you are fond of ...

Enjoying my shorter posts? Not yawning now? There we go then! That is
the way we should relate. Keep well, son.

 

[dorayme]

In plain English? That's just pomposity. I'd rather have clarity than
tortured, supposedly "impressive" prose.

"I was hoping to get across the difficulties, sometimes insurmountable,
of adapting *content* across media".

is totally without meaning to you eh? Or are you simply annoyed that I
shower accolades on Guy? You were rude to Guy and I want that you send
him chocolates, send them to me and I will pass them on. Make it
expensive dark chocolate liqueur filled ones please. And a big box, no
skimping.

And, of course, who's fault is that? I offered to engage you in the
process of explaining it with your involvement. So that when you got to
this, it would certainly seem to be an intelligible idea, whether you
agreed with it or not.

If you had cooperated I might have used your words which you would have
volunteered.

When was the last time you struggled to think something a bit difficult
through? How brilliant are you in plain speaking, Churchill? A lot of
the plainest speaking I see around here are abuse and ignorant and snide
remarks. Is that what you want?

I think that is what you understand and appreciate best. How would you
sum up the general difficulties of adapting productions in one media to
other media if my

"I was hoping to get across the difficulties, sometimes insurmountable,
of adapting *content* across media".

is pompous and unclear and tortured?

Well, Churchill?

 

[asdf]

"I was hoping to get across the difficulties, sometimes insurmountable,
of adapting *content* across media".

....and you did not.

is totally without meaning to you eh? Or are you simply annoyed that I
shower accolades on Guy? You were rude to Guy and I want that you send

I was not rude.

him chocolates, send them to me and I will pass them on. Make it
expensive dark chocolate liqueur filled ones please. And a big box, no
skimping.

And, of course, who's fault is that? I offered to engage you in the
process of explaining it with your involvement. So that when you got to

Involvement by keeping quiet... hmm... original.

this, it would certainly seem to be an intelligible idea, whether you
agreed with it or not.

If you had cooperated I might have used your words which you would have
volunteered.

Used for what?

When was the last time you struggled to think something a bit difficult
through? How brilliant are you in plain speaking, Churchill? A lot of
the plainest speaking I see around here are abuse and ignorant and snide
remarks. Is that what you want?

I think difficult things through for a living. My job entails (and maybe
this will be of some use to you)...

Before saying anything do the following

1) Perform a full analysis of the problem or topic at hand
2) Formulate an effective means of communicating same.
3) Formulate a plan of action that alleviates the problem.
4) Implement the plan.
5) Review the outcomes and return to 1) if necessary.

We're still waiting for 2).

I think that is what you understand and appreciate best. How would you
sum up the general difficulties of adapting productions in one media to
other media if my

"I was hoping to get across the difficulties, sometimes insurmountable,
of adapting *content* across media".

is pompous and unclear and tortured?

Not in isolation, but taken as a *whole* your arguments thus far have *not*
been intelligible.

Well, Churchill?

There you go again.

 

[asdf]

Because you were not understanding the simplest things in my previous.

They may be simple to you, but you failed to communicate them clearly, so
*of course* I, and many others misunderstood them. When criticised on this,
the best you can manage is patronsing put-downs, which are simply boring.

You were deciding that I was breaking the LAW and putting blind people
down and all sorts of other horrid and crazy things.

Rubbish. I said no such thing. What I said was that *if* you did that you
would be breaking the law.

I was taking a line of trying to go slowly with you and get you involved
in the stages. I suggested a plan and you seemed to agree to it but then
almost immediately scuttled it with your inattention, carelessness, and
wilful disregard of the main rules designed to help us both.

Any other questions?

With you asdf, I am more concerned with simple mundane things like:

Son, are you eating your greens, are you getting to bed nice and early,
bathing enough, exercising, reading more wholesome books than those
boy's football comics you are fond of ...

Enjoying my shorter posts? Not yawning now? There we go then! That is
the way we should relate. Keep well, son.

Well, not *enjoying* per se. But at least this last post was shorter (though
typically devoid of any real content).

Ok. Thanks for the patronising drivel. Now it's time to state your case.
Please do so.

Seeing as how feel empowered to make personal comment, perhaps I may be
allowed to do also, albeit, I hope, more constructively. You seem more
interested in massaging your ego that providing a lucid, considered
argument.

Instead of mindlessly typing reams of convoluted, tortured drivel that
passes (apparently) for reasoned argument and discussion that is, frankly,
not even mildly amusing, you might sit down and have a little think before
hitting the keyboard. I'm sure, if you *really* try, you would be able to
trim your somewhat superfluously florid language into something a little
clearer.

If not, you will be at risk of appearing as most of the 'social sciences'
academic community, who rather than concede a point, will dress up their
arguments with irrelevantly complex language, convolute and obfuscate the
argument, before finally twisting so far that they are able to agree with
the original protagonist without loss of face. This process is usually
glacial, and can form the basis of entire, yet almost entirely pointless,
careers.

Please don't waste your time doing that here.

All you need to do is to concisely and succinctly put your points one by
one, together as a whole, in one, single post, and keep away from the
patronising self-ego-massage. Is that so hard? If it is, please say so, and
I can safely ignore this thread in the certain knowledge that no matter how
good and idea you have, it will be so poorly communicated as to be
unintelligible, and therefore useless.

If not, it can only be down to two reasons, either discretely or in
combination:

1) You don't actually *have* a valid argument, but would rather whitter away
the time on mindless points of netiquette and patronising put-downs.
2) You are unable to communicate with sufficient clarity to get your points
across. Merely dismissing criticism the way you did above erodes your
position.

I rarely discuss things in combative terms, but have become so frustrated at
your unwillingness and/or inability to produce a cogent, full and legible
account of your points of argument, despite the suspicion that there may be
a small pearl of wisdom in there *somewhere*, that I must now say...

(To borrow a phrase) "Put up or Shut Up". One further mind-numbingly
ascerbic and patronising post from you will confirm my hypotheses.

 

[dorayme]

...and you did not.

Because you stopped the process.

Involvement by keeping quiet... hmm... original.

You never stop misunderstanding and misrepresenting. You stopped the
process by keeping quiet when you should not have (you failed to expand
your thoughts as requested) and you stopped it by being unable to keep
sully the process with talk of conclusions or where things were going
(the reasonable idea being that we both establish what we agree about
without talking conclusions for a while)

Used for what?

For couching the conclusion in. You have not a clue what was proposed
about procedure do you, in spite of you seeming to agree?

I think difficult things through for a living. My job entails (and maybe
this will be of some use to you)...

Before saying anything do the following

Before saying anything do the following

1) Perform a full analysis of the problem or topic at hand
2) Formulate an effective means of communicating same.
3) Formulate a plan of action that alleviates the problem.
4) Implement the plan.
5) Review the outcomes and return to 1) if necessary.

Like you do, you mean but I should do it for free and you get paid eh?
Right! Got it! On usenet! Maybe you should take Guy's advice and send me
money.

You know that you are welcome not to participate. This is not everyone's
cup of tea. I am happy for us to say hello every now and again. No need
for us to be going on. Relax. May you live a long and happy life. May
your descendants get on well with mine. It would help if they sent them
money.

 

[asdf]

Because you stopped the process.



You never stop misunderstanding and misrepresenting. You stopped the
process by keeping quiet when you should not have (you failed to expand
your thoughts as requested) and you stopped it by being unable to keep
sully the process with talk of conclusions or where things were going
(the reasonable idea being that we both establish what we agree about
without talking conclusions for a while)

For couching the conclusion in. You have not a clue what was proposed
about procedure do you, in spite of you seeming to agree?


Like you do, you mean but I should do it for free and you get paid eh?
Right! Got it! On usenet! Maybe you should take Guy's advice and send me
money.

You have willfully missed the point for the last time.

Goodbye. Have fun.

 

[dorayme]

I rarely discuss things in combative terms, but have become so frustrated at
your unwillingness and/or inability to produce a cogent, full and legible
account of your points of argument, despite the suspicion that there may be
a small pearl of wisdom in there *somewhere*, that I must now say...

You missed that I was preparing something more comprehensive on a
server? In the meantime you ask that I shut TFU? As if I don't need help
and feedback. You have to stop flattering me like this.

I have benefited from those who oppose me - including you - or
misunderstand me (take your pick).

Some others who have popped up to take their pound of flesh are almost
beyond contempt, their ignorance and snideness and treachery and
disloyalty noted by me. I have dispatched my men to round them all up
and put them in the small room that the now unemployed and consumptive
former one-man businessman, Luigi is renting in the slums of Naples.
They will have to give him all day long extensive help to reinstate his
website as a condition of their being fed.

 

[dorayme]

David, I do not deny that there are such things as paragraphs in much
the same way that I do not deny that there are facts.

However, without contradiction, I do deny that there are facts as
understood a certain way. I do not think facts form part of the ontology
of our world. They are not extra things to chairs and tables and film
reels. They - at best - supervene on the things that do exist. ....

[...]
To explain this idea of supervenience (well known and variously
controversial in other fields), I would need to know anyone was still
listening or interested!

Go on then.

Change of mind. Please forgive me. I can't think of any *brief* way to
explain this that would be likely understood or useful. And anything
long might damage the group.

Notice how quiet it is from visitors? They probably take one look at the
totally absurd exchanges I was engaged in with asdf and piss off pronto.
I am sending a cheque to all the regular subscribers to compensate them
for the loss of business and accept total responsibility.

Oy you that wants to know how to get rid of borders on img links come
back... damn, he's hopped it, he spotted me! ... what about you there
that can't work out how to get a container to enclose floated children..
come back... what do you mean you don't care?

It's no good, they are too scared ... and fast...

 

[dorayme]

Well, you don't get a "technical" definition from a dictionary I
suppose. There is no authoritative definition for this kind of thing,
but a fact usually means a true statement, and usually it also has to be
contingent (as opposed to necessarily true).

Facts are often disputable, and necessarily true statements often
aren't.

It is true that we *say* facts are disputable. I prefer to think this
is an alternative way of saying that there is a dispute about what the
facts are or a dispute about which of a number of possibilities are more
than mere possibilities. In other words, a fact is to be contrasted with
a mere possibility.

Perhaps the sense of what I am picking up here is not obvious? There is
a sense in which a fact is not the sort of thing that can be disputed.
You can dispute an allegation of fact but not a fact itself.

There is a pressure to say that a fact is what corresponds to a true
statement. A statement is something that can be argued about but a fact
- under this pressure - is not the sort of thing than can be argued
about (any more than you can argue with a tree).

The almost overwhelming temptation is to say a sentence is true if it
corresponds with something in a certain way. In the truth relation way!
Here is the sentence and here is the fact. When they are both here, we
have truth.

Some very tricky questions arise about this picture. I am happy to use
the word "fact" in conversation but I prefer not to use it in any
analysis about truth. There is nothing much more primitive than the idea
of a statement or belief being true and talk of facts adds no further
understanding in my opinion.

[...]

But there is the *big* "except" that I mention above. You are getting
away from an ontology of things by substituting a special kind of
ontology of things, namely facts. It is not a way I would recommend to
go.

So what would you recommend an ontology of? Or just no ontology at all?

Well, now you are asking! But no big surprise answer. I believe in
chairs and tables, moons and horizons, plants and animals, atoms and
photons and last but not least, paragraphs. Not in gods, souls or minds
that are separate from brains. I am agnostic about numbers, classes and
possibilities.

(I know this last item might surprise but it has been argued that
possibilities are, in a sense, actualities. One main push for this is to
give counterfactuals truth conditions. Counterfactuals can be true. But
*what* makes them true - what fact, if you like?)

1. If I had succeeding in locating Luigi, I would have sent him to serve
time in Tasmania.

could be true in spite of

2. I did not succeed in locating Luigi

being untrue.

)

 

[dorayme]

Why should a *practical* website maker choose a paragraph element for a
paragraph?

Let's put it another way. Why is a paragraph element rather than any
other element, a better choice for marking up a passage of text that has
already been identified as a paragraph by the website maker?

Let's be more precise because it is arguable that some paragraphs should
not be so marked up. Why should groups of consecutive paragraphs, a more
likely candidate, be so marked up?

I am talking about paragraphs that have been identified as such by the
website maker accepting them from his client as such or assembled from
bits from client material or simply written by himself.

One answer is that he marks up a paragraph as a paragraph element
because it is in fact a paragraph and paragraph elements are designed to
be containers for paragraphs.

In order to find this answer satisfying, you need to know how and why
the paragraph element is the best choice. You do not buy a car or a
house on the mere say so of salesmen. You check the car or house out for
yourself. Or you check that higher authorities are indeed higher and
take their advice. Such checking goes beyond a master/slave or a
religious guru/disciple relationship. And all higher authority advice is
usually mistaken or superficial in some respects. Sometimes in major
respects and sometimes in minor ones. So we need to tread carefully and
vigilantly.

Can we be confident that the intended function of the paragraph element
is nearly always if not always the best choice for the most reasonable
website maker's requirement regarding paragraphs. Well, in the case of
the paragraph, yes we can. You only have to look at a good sample of
browsers to see that, without assistance from author styles, they
present paragraphs in such a way that they look like paragraphs or sound
like them. Important because humans are used to this presentational
format to appreciate all that the website page, in its discursive parts,
is saying to them.

We can be a bit confident - though we need to be vigilant whilst ever
Microsoft exists on earth - that device makers understand what
paragraphs are meant to do and will ensure that their devices, equipped
with recommended software, will present human recognisable paragraph
patterns.

We cannot be confident that styling some non-semantic element like a DIV
will serve our purpose because, for a start, author styles are not
guaranteed to apply. Authors do not have agreements with device makers
or software companies in the way that those who fashioned and supported
the paragraph element have agreements or understandings with device and
software makers (indeed the individuals involved in setting up these
understandings and agreements are not all distributed in separate camps).

Saying something is a semantic element is nothing much more than saying
what I have said above about the reliability of presentational pattern
expectations. What makes a paragraph element a semantic element is it
being a reliable cause of presentational patterns, most of which if not
all, are well known to all literate humans.

 

[asdf]

Let's put it another way. Why is a paragraph element rather than any
other element, a better choice for marking up a passage of text that has
already been identified as a paragraph by the website maker?

Let's be more precise because it is arguable that some paragraphs should
not be so marked up. Why should groups of consecutive paragraphs, a more
likely candidate, be so marked up?

I am talking about paragraphs that have been identified as such by the
website maker accepting them from his client as such or assembled from
bits from client material or simply written by himself.

One answer is that he marks up a paragraph as a paragraph element
because it is in fact a paragraph and paragraph elements are designed to
be containers for paragraphs.

In order to find this answer satisfying, you need to know how and why
the paragraph element is the best choice. You do not buy a car or a
house on the mere say so of salesmen. You check the car or house out for
yourself. Or you check that higher authorities are indeed higher and
take their advice. Such checking goes beyond a master/slave or a
religious guru/disciple relationship. And all higher authority advice is
usually mistaken or superficial in some respects. Sometimes in major
respects and sometimes in minor ones. So we need to tread carefully and
vigilantly.

Can we be confident that the intended function of the paragraph element
is nearly always if not always the best choice for the most reasonable
website maker's requirement regarding paragraphs. Well, in the case of
the paragraph, yes we can. You only have to look at a good sample of
browsers to see that, without assistance from author styles, they
present paragraphs in such a way that they look like paragraphs or sound
like them. Important because humans are used to this presentational
format to appreciate all that the website page, in its discursive parts,
is saying to them.

We can be a bit confident - though we need to be vigilant whilst ever
Microsoft exists on earth - that device makers understand what
paragraphs are meant to do and will ensure that their devices, equipped
with recommended software, will present human recognisable paragraph
patterns.

We cannot be confident that styling some non-semantic element like a DIV
will serve our purpose because, for a start, author styles are not
guaranteed to apply. Authors do not have agreements with device makers
or software companies in the way that those who fashioned and supported
the paragraph element have agreements or understandings with device and
software makers (indeed the individuals involved in setting up these
understandings and agreements are not all distributed in separate camps).

Saying something is a semantic element is nothing much more than saying
what I have said above about the reliability of presentational pattern
expectations. What makes a paragraph element a semantic element is it
being a reliable cause of presentational patterns, most of which if not
all, are well known to all literate humans.

Yes, I know I said goodbye, but just thought I'd pop in to say:

"Well done". That's heaps better! Even *I* can understand that one

 

[David Segall]

David, I do not deny that there are such things as paragraphs in much
the same way that I do not deny that there are facts.

However, without contradiction, I do deny that there are facts as
understood a certain way. I do not think facts form part of the ontology
of our world. They are not extra things to chairs and tables and film
reels. They - at best - supervene on the things that do exist. And the
same is true of paragraphs. They supervene on real live patterns in the
physical world.

You are a wicked woman! You lured me into this thread with words
directed at "a *practical* website maker". You deliberately exposed a
<P> tag and made alluring references to styles. Now you reveal that
your real motive was to promote a theoretical discussion of the
philosophy of supervenience and its application to HTML.

I will have to reread the HTML 4.01 specification to calm myself. I
refuse to be drawn into a world where a paragraph might be something
other than a fundamental building block of text, speech and SGML.

 

[dorayme]

Yes, I know I said goodbye, but just thought I'd pop in to say:

"Well done". That's heaps better! Even *I* can understand that one

Hello asdf, I thought you had divorced your poor embattled real mum here?

It is common to take some time to gather thoughts. It is an ugly sight
when this is done in full view of the public. But, despite being the
exhibitionist trollop I am, the extent of the carnage can have a
galvanising effect and cause me to retreat to safer ground with more
modest clothing.

But I warn you, I have barely begun. This was a mere tactical retreat
from some more difficult terrain. You are in for some horrible local
weather and local big seas to rock your little fundamentalist boat. I
will not stop until I have made the seas safe for *practical website
makers*. safe from you talibans with your spooky abstract elements and
your fantasies of content good for every modality.

<g>

 

[asdf]

Hello asdf, I thought you had divorced your poor embattled real mum here?

It is common to take some time to gather thoughts. It is an ugly sight
when this is done in full view of the public. But, despite being the
exhibitionist trollop I am, the extent of the carnage can have a
galvanising effect and cause me to retreat to safer ground with more
modest clothing.

But I warn you, I have barely begun. This was a mere tactical retreat
from some more difficult terrain. You are in for some horrible local
weather and local big seas to rock your little fundamentalist boat. I
will not stop until I have made the seas safe for *practical website
makers*. safe from you talibans with your spooky abstract elements and
your fantasies of content good for every modality.

<g>

DRM, all I have ever asked is that you clearly state your case. You have now
done so, and I agree with you. Well done.

 

[dorayme]

You are a wicked woman! You lured me into this thread with words
directed at "a *practical* website maker". You deliberately exposed a
<P> tag and made alluring references to styles. Now you reveal that
your real motive was to promote a theoretical discussion of the
philosophy of supervenience and its application to HTML.

I will have to reread the HTML 4.01 specification to calm myself. I
refuse to be drawn into a world where a paragraph might be something
other than a fundamental building block of text, speech and SGML.

<g>

You might be surprised to learn how very practical the aim of all this
is. It actually has the consequence in the end of freeing the website
maker from the guilt that makes so many of them sneak about keeping to
the darker parts of the public alleys. Some of them are so thoroughly
frightened that they even refuse to use tables for tabular data.

For now, I am quite happy to let you retreat into the spooky world of
your fundamental building blocks.

Practical website makers know a paragraph from their simpler shadows.
And, armed with my practical corporate view of elements, they can even
go to the HTML 4.01 specs with some confidence now.

Don't be fooled by me being asdf's mum. I am also the guy who fought
Andy Dingley a while back in a dual arbitrated by Burl Ives:

<http://tinyurl.com/d79qns>