From: Gavin Nicol <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 16:44:59 GMT Message-Id: <199608081644.QAA25104@wiley.EBT.COM> To: email@example.com CC: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com In-reply-to: <199608081531.IAA22202@pele.ckm.ucsf.edu> (firstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: Re: Generic Markup [was:Re: deprecated tags in Wilbur & Cougar] >Yes, we can use inline style attributes to cover special cases, and I >have argued *for* inline style in the past <b style="css: >color="blue-in-the-face"> How many attributes did you propose? >But if there is a permanent moritorium on new structural tags (as >there should be) I have a fundamental problem with this. People hsould be allowed to use the structures most applicable to the task they wish to accomplish. >If structure and presentation are to be separated and this is >accomplished by replacing expressions of structure (SGML elements) >with style-sheet-based classes (attributes) attached to generic >structural elements, then we have come full circle, and structure >becomes tied again to presentation instead of the other way around. I guess this is close to the point I'm trying to make. You can represent the *information* in a number of ways. They question is "what is the most readily comprehensible, and usable representation of the information?".