Message-Id: <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:12:53 -0800 From: Charles Peyton Taylor <CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil> To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com Subject: Re: Comments on Cougar DTD (fwd) -Reply >>> MegaZone <firstname.lastname@example.org> 07/17/96 04:07pm >>> >Once upon a time Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet shaped the >electrons to say... >>May I add that we mark FONT and CENTER as deprecated, and remove >the >>FACE attribute for FONT altogether? With the support for style >sheets I agree about making FONT and CENTER deprecated. >Why? >1. I will still argue that FONT as in the DTD is not bad - some >implementations are poor. The main complaint about it has been >the color setting that doesn't get turned off when the user >selects their own settings - this is implementation. The >ability to set the size and color in the document itself with >FONT is very nice, and very simple. The same could be done with >style sheets - but why force everyone to use CSS when they don't >need the complexity? I am loathe to try and teach CSS to all the >people here doing little things for the web, while most of them >understand FONT just fine. I disagree. The larger your scale, the greater the advantage of CSS. <Font> is easier only when you're writing very, very small peices of text. <P align=center><Font face="arial" size="+1"> Paragraph</font> VS. <P style="font-size:+1; font-family:arial; text-align=center"> Paragraph But how many people write web pages with only one paragraph? Consider this: <P align=center><Font face="arial" size="+1"> First par.</font> <P align=center><Font face="arial" size="+1"> second par.</font> VS. <DIV style="font-size:+1; font-family:arial; text-align=center"> <P > First par. <P > second par. </DIV> And the larger your scale it becomes more apparent that it's easier to use style attributes or links than to put <font> tags everywhere. >2. CENTER is *way* too widespread to ever leave the spec, why >bother deprecating it when it is just the same thing as <div >align=center> anyway. >Is there some problem with having an alias like that? As was mentioned before, it bloats up the spec. Considering that Netscape had already begun to support <DIV align="center">, it's my opinion that <center> should have never made it into Wilbur anyway. I would hope that making it deprecated would spur the makers of GUI HTML tools to use <DIV ALIGN="center"> over <center>, but I don't think it would actually keep anyone from using it, if they wanted to, to write validated HTML with the non-strict option. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this.) >3. You *never* just drop tags from one release to the next - >dropping features is an extreme evil and you will get a backlash I also disagree that dropping tags is an *extreme* evil, but it should be done responsibly. I'd like to think that mistakes could be rectified. >from it. And your argument for dropping it is weak - so what if >CSS is around? Just because there is another way to alter the >font doesn't mean it obsoletes FACE. Again, CSS is unintuitive >to a great many users. CSS isn't a big deal to learn. I was talking to a friend of mine who writes fiction as a hobby. He didn't even know what a font was. I would consider him pretty bright anyway. My point is that new users are going to have to learn *SOMETHING* new, so it's probably best if they learn something that will scale. >>I would be very surprised if popular browsers would interpret >><UL PLAIN> as <UL TYPE=plain> and render an unbulleted list. > >So would I - but I'd still like the PLAIN variation even if it >means ><UL type=plain> > >>> 6. Any reason why certain elements don't have %attrs; in the >ATTLIST? >>> Examples: ADDRESS (can't do <address class=signature>?), >DIR, MENU, >>> IMG (can't specify image size via style sheets?) >>ALL block elements should have those attributes, including ALIGN >and >>CLASS. > >Agreed. Me too. >-MZ >-- Charles Taylor My opinions are my own.