Re: Generic Markup [was:Re: deprecated tags in Wilbur & Cougar]

Gavin Nicol (gtn@ebt.com)
Thu, 8 Aug 1996 16:44:59 GMT


From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 16:44:59 GMT
Message-Id: <199608081644.QAA25104@wiley.EBT.COM>
To: marc@ckm.ucsf.edu
CC: www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
In-reply-to: <199608081531.IAA22202@pele.ckm.ucsf.edu> (marc@ckm.ucsf.edu)
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?".