- From: Scott Luebking <phoenixl@netcom.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 22:43:53 -0800 (PST)
- To: charles@w3.org, jay@peepo.com, phoenixl@netcom.com
- Cc: A.Flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi, John It has actually been documented that it is possible both to agree with me and and not to be smitten down by God. Such agreement is not always an unfortunate occurence in one's life. (smile) Scott > Unfortunately I have to agree with scott on this. > > (i have sent various other emails concerning this, however thay are being > diverted to DD.) > > You are requiring too much of the author, and imho xml is a pap for the same > reason. > > to quote charles: > You should look through the HTML specifcation for > the attributes title, rel, and class in particular, and for elements such as > blockquote, samp, cite (also an attribute) which are designed to code > specific types of semantics (the class mechanism allows for the general > encoding of semantics). > > > someone with cog-dif or not may wish to author pages on sports. > they will generally know if they are talking cows or bulls. > expecting them to cope with the above techno-babble is a non-starter. > hence my views on xml.
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2000 01:44:02 UTC