HTML for life without parole?

<TODD FAHRNER TYPE="excerpt" SOURCE="email:html-future@w3.org>
>I'd say that HTML 5.0 should be designed such that no WYSIWYG document
>editor can touch it unless it's also a CSS editor. Existing WYSIWYG editors
>are suited to generating HTML 3.2 or 4.0 Transitional, and I agree with you
>that a great many authors will continue to use these versions (or, more
>likely, something vaguely resembling them) for a long time yet. That's
>fine. I thought this was about improving upon HTML 4.0 Strict, rather than
>stretching out the transition to stylesheets for style.
>
>" The
>" accessibility argument doesn't apply to these elements, since its
>" easy to apply styles for aural browsing etc. as has been so ably
>" demonstrated by T.V. Raman. I don't see how generating <EM> for the
>" Italic button and <STRONG> for the bold button changes things.
>
>It would be wrong to do this anyway. Some stylesheets (such as, um, the
>Core Styles) render <em> as bold, and <strong> as bold italic. Any
>questions? STRONG and EM together typically transform to BOLD UPPERCASE. If
>you think keeping B and I as elements are clear and natural and harmonious
>with other W3C initiatives, try explaining this to a newcomer: <b
>style="font-weight: normal">.
</TODD FAHRNER>

	I don't (with all due respect Todd) agree with this. The difference between 
logical and physical styles seems quite clear to me. I dont believe that 
HTML markup should supply tags with physical styles at all. The choice
of how to present emphasis should be made by the client, not the author.

Many user agents in the future will not be able (and some currently
cannot)  render 
"BOLD UPPERCASE" in a way that looks good or even readable. 
(Unix systems with only fixed width fonts are a good example.)
Italics and bolds are specific typographical elements of English
(and possibly some other Western languages). HTML needs to have
a broader appeal than this to accomodate future developments.
The existing buttons in editors can either be changed to produce
a style rule (as Todd suggested) or be changed to something more sensible.

I also cannot agree that we must build HTML in such a way that it requires
the use of a style language. My concern here is that no good implementation
of a CSS capable browser will ever be built. We have never had an HTML
compliant browser, or a good HTML editor. Now we have CSS2, already a 
recommendation, still 18 months or more ahead of  CSS1 being adopted
for common use! And somebody said something about CSS3...this is crazy.
By the time using CSS1 (by hand in vi with no possibility of checking it or 
being able to rely on the results) is in common use, what will be actual
standard be? 
And will anyone build a client that uses it?

<TODD FAHRNER TYPE="excerpt" SOURCE="email:html-future@w3.org>
>Such users can continue doing what they do! Let 'em! What do they need a
>new DTD for? They've never paid attention to the old ones. Anyway I think
>you confuse desire with necessity. Saying that authors like to use tables
>for presentation because they all seem to do it is like saying that

>prisoners really like prison because they seem not to have escaped. 
</TODD FAHRNER>

	I laughed when I read this, and then repeated it to one of the gentlemen 
here at CNET who writes HTML for a living (by hand in a text editor *sigh*).
He also laughed and told me: "at least with prison you know when they 
are going to let you out". I thought this was particularly cogent to this 
discussion.

	We hate using all those slow, inflexible tables. But we have no choice,
if we are to meet even half of our design goals. 

	The real solution is *not to author in HTML*. Then we can standardize it,
and forget about it and go on to other things, like improving content. 

Regards,

D-

Received on Thursday, 21 May 1998 17:50:43 UTC