Date: Thu, 27 Oct 94 09:05:26 PST From: "Sheerin, Peter" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <9409277832.AA783273926@ccmail.mfi.com> To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Netscape & New HTML There is one concise point that I think should be made. In something like HTML that is going to be viewed by a wide variety of users, and by a variety of different browsers(eve if it's only two), and on a wide variety of operating systems, there needs to be a certian level of abstraction to ensure that a document is going to make sense anyplace. OK, so let's assume that there will only be one viewer (Hear ye, hear ye! All bow down before the King <insert "NCSA", "Lynx", "Netcruiser", "Netscape", or the OS/2 web browser>). Ok, now what the devil is Lynx supposed to do when it runs into something like <style font=Helvetica size=24pt ...>, when the author chose to use that instead of <title>? It won't have a clue. That's a bad example, but shows the extreme of the problem. Howabout an author specing a font like <style font=WingDings...> or <style font=Times New Roman ...>, and I happen to be viewing the document on Netscape for Unix, and don't (and won't ever, likely) have either of those two fonts? If we're going to be specing specific fonts, then the *ONLY* way it should be done is using a standard such as Adobe's multiple-master fonts, where an approximation can be made on any system configured with the standard base fonts, or the HTML document includes the embedded definition of the font. Otherwise, we need to stick to at least a certian level of abstraction (like <pre> or <code> instead of <font=courier 10 point> when we want to specify a fixed-space font) so that different systems can generate an appropriate view, even if they don't have the specific font which one particular author decided to use during the blue moon. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: Netscape & New HTML Author: email@example.com at Internet Date: 10/22/94 3:15 PM Does anyone have a URL to a really good resource on the net that explains in nontechnical terms why semantic markup is a good thing? The best I can say right now is that it expresses ideas at a much higher level than page layout languages do. And because it's at that higher level, you can do a lot more with it, it's more reusable, it's more portable, it can be transmogrified into something completely different yet still convey its ideas. In an information space where the amount of information present is just overwhelming, as the internet has become (and it will only get worse), being able to deal with and navigate among documents semantically is essential.