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

Brent Eades (
Sun, 18 Aug 1996 10:53:29 +0000

Message-Id: <>
From: "Brent Eades" <>
To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <>,
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 10:53:29 +0000
Subject: Re: To <P> or not to <P> 

On 17 Aug 96 , Daniel W. Connolly wrote:

> 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.

OK, all fair enough... but I guess my original point still stands,
more or less: something is amiss with a language when reasonably
sophisticated users of it can still, after years, get hung up on a
trivial point of its useage.

Using <p> as an example, why do the specs simply not state that
<p>foo</p> is the *only* correct way to contain text not otherwise
marked up... or <p>alone  between blocks of text is the only way...
but not both?

Just seems to me that if proficient-but-average users like myself
are constantly perplexed by (non?) issues like this, then something 
isn't working. 

Brent Eades, Box 1759, Almonte, Ontario |
Member: Web Consultants Association | Contributor: CGI-L FAQ