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

Scott E. Preece (preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com)
Tue, 6 Aug 1996 15:58:40 -0500


Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 15:58:40 -0500
Message-Id: <199608062058.PAA07537@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
From: "Scott E. Preece" <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
To: ctaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil
CC: www-html@w3.org
In-reply-to: Charles Peyton Taylor's message of Tue, 06 Aug 1996 13:14:10
Subject: Re: deprecated tags in Wilbur & Cougar -Reply -Reply

 From: Charles Peyton Taylor <ctaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
| 
| 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.
---

If classes are going to be useful (by which I mean if they are going to
leaed to reusable stylesheets), they need to be standardized.  The scope
of the standard determines the useful scope of reusability of the
stylesheet (a continuum from totally non-reusable-even-by-the-author to
reusable by any author).  I think we will get de facto standard
stylesheets courtesy of the major UA vendors in pretty short order.

Further, if classes are to be used to convey semantic information that
is useful to tools (such as indexers), they must be standardized or the
information the classes encode is unusable.

My own take on this is that we need a much larger standard set of
elements and we need an effective social mechanism for getting new
elements standardized quickly.

scott

--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
internet mail:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com