What did formalists and meleeists disagree about in ship-of-the-line warfare?

In the context of ship-of-the-line warfare, the disagreement between "formalists" and "meleeists" centered on the rigidity of naval formations during combat.

• Formalists: These advocates insisted on strict adherence to the columnar formation, or "line of battle," throughout the entire engagement. They believed the line should be maintained regardless of the situation to ensure the fleet remained a cohesive unit under the admiral's control, which also allowed for safer withdrawal in the event of reverses.12
• Meleeists: These tacticians argued that the line should be broken at the discretion of a squadron commander. They saw a distinct advantage in abandoning the formation to pursue a fleeing enemy or to engage in more aggressive, flexible combat maneuvers.1

While the formalist viewpoint dominated British naval tactics for much of the 18th century, the tactical advantages of the melee eventually gained recognition. This shift allowed for "general chases," where the line could be broken to pursue enemy ships, a development that eventually paved the way for the more flexible and decisive maneuvers employed by commanders like Horatio Nelson.13