W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Fw: Disturbing trend in tables

From: Tina Marie Holmboe <tina@elfi.elfi.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:34:14 +0100
Message-ID: <20010116223414.A27548@elfi.elfi.org>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>, "'Ben Canning'" <bencan@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 01:57:27PM -0500, Bailey, Bruce wrote:

> to the issues caused by posting invalid html.  Yes, browsers are suppose to
> recover from these types of errors, but it is quite amateurish for an author
> to rely on this.  It is pretty unexcusable for an automated tool to
> facilitate faults!  We are quite intolerant of syntax errors in C and even
> PDF and Word documents.  Why is HTML an exception to this rule?

  Let me just AOL that :)


> Personally, I think there is a huge untapped market for a "WYSIWYG" html
> authoring package that doesn't pretend to do page layout.  It would produce
> only valid HTML 4.01 strict.  If a user wanted fonts, they would have to do
> this via style sheets.  There would be no "indent" button (or it would be
> tied to CSS).  Clicking the large "B" button would produce <em> and not <b>.

  Ah ... here I must disagree. The 'B' in classic word processors indicate
  bold - and definetly not the logical construct of the EM - emphasis.

  I still think that an object-based web construction tool (I do not wish to
  even use the word 'WYSIWYG') in where one set 'properties' on 'objects',
  and a section of bold text would be considered an object would be the
  way to go
  Ah ... here I must disagree. The 'B' in classic word processors indicate
  bold - and definetly not the logical construct of the EM - emphasis.

  I still think that an object-based web construction tool (I do not wish to
  even use the word 'WYSIWYG') in where one set 'properties' on 'objects',
  and a section of bold text would be considered an object would be the
  way to go..

  But apart from that I agree with you.


-- 
 - Tina
Received on Tuesday, 16 January 2001 16:34:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:53 GMT