Re: deprecated tags in Wilbur & Cougar -Reply -Reply

Charles Peyton Taylor (ctaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil)
Tue, 06 Aug 1996 13:14:10 -0800


Message-Id: <s2074530.039@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 1996 13:14:10 -0800
From: Charles Peyton Taylor <ctaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject:  Re: deprecated tags in Wilbur & Cougar -Reply -Reply

But I thought the reason for CLASS sets in the first place was
to specify *special*, author-defined instances of content that 
aren't separate elements.

If you are going to standardize a class as a specific content type 
I don't see why you shouldn't just make it an element.  It would be easier 
for the author writing the document; perhaps it would be easier 
on the parsers as well.

I think that maybe <link> relations should be standardized, but 
not classes.


>>> Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> 08/01/96 05:48am >>>
>At 12:32 PM 8/1/96 +0200, Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet wrote:
>>This would be a major pain for search engines and indexing robots, as
>>they'd have to parse style sheets to obtain this information.
>>
>>It's similar to using <SPAN CLASS=phonenumber> and then specifying how
>>it should be displayed in the style sheet, rather than having a standard
>><PHONE> element, which the browser can display/render/dial/stuff-in-a-
>>phone-book any way it likes.
>
>It doesn't really matter whether you do it in CLASS or with an element. The
>important thing is that it be _standardized_. We should standardize CLASS sets
>just as we standardize entity and elemenet sets.
>
> Paul Prescod
>
>

C  h a r l e s    P e y t o n   T a y l o r         ctaylor@nps.navy.mil
The opinions and views expressed       ##  even though we're on our own,
are my own and do not reflect          ##        we are never all alone,
Those of the Naval PostGraduate School ##  when we are singing, singing.
                   http://vislab-www.nps.navy.mil/%7ectaylor/