Re: To <P> or not to <P>

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Sat, 17 Aug 1996 23:50:28 -0400


Message-Id: <199608180350.XAA26301@anansi.w3.org>
To: "Brent Eades" <beades@ottawa.net>
cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: To <P> or not to <P> 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 16 Aug 1996 16:15:41 GMT."
             <199608162017.QAA26478@dns.ottawa.net> 
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 23:50:28 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>

In message <199608162017.QAA26478@dns.ottawa.net>, "Brent Eades" writes:
>
>It surprises me somewhat that at the same time professionals in the
>HTML field are debating relatively arcane matters such as DTDs vs
>GIs, SGML, CLASS, etc etc, a question about so seemingly simple a
>matter as the correct use of <p> can still spark a rather spirited
>round of debate and disagreements amongst these same experts.
>
>Why is it, do you think, that HTML is -- from my vantage at least --
>so perenially susceptible to this sort of subjective interpretation,
>even amongst those most expert in its history and application?

I didn't see any debate among "those most expert..."  Note that
everyone who cited a source agreed on the syntax and semantics of <p>
and </p>.

On the contrary: The <p> debate is so old that lots of people --
even those who haven't read the relavent specs and aren't willing
to consult and cite them -- are willing to give their two cents.

Dan