Re: ReComments on Cougar DTD:

Marcus E. Hennecke (marcush@crc.ricoh.com)
Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:37:54 -0700 (PDT)


Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 14:37:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Marcus E. Hennecke" <marcush@crc.ricoh.com>
Message-Id: <199607192137.OAA03710@cougar.crc.ricoh.com>
To: galactus@stack.urc.tue.nl, murray@spyglass.com
Subject: Re: ReComments on Cougar DTD:
Cc: www-html@w3.org

On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 17:16:48 -0500, murray@spyglass.com (Murray Altheim) wrote:
> galactus@stack.urc.tue.nl (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet) writes:
> >Bleh. Is it really that much easier to implement
> >HR { src = "foo.gif" } than <HR SRC="foo.gif"> for a browser developer?
> 
> It sure is if you have to do it fifty times. Or five hundred times. Note
> that stylesheets can be internal (to one document) or can be external
> files, referenced by an entire server's content. And the author can make a
> modification to one file rather than every instance of a style feature.

Actually, <HR SRC> was not part of the DTD snippet that I offered and
that Dave was referring to although <UL SRC> and <LI SRC> were.

I find the current Cougar DTD to be inconsistent. On the one hand we 
have <BR CLEAR=ALL>, but when it comes to <P CLEAR=ALL>, all of a sudden
it is a style sheet issue. Similarly with <UL TYPE=PLAIN>. Why not allow
it when we already allow <UL TYPE=DISC>?

It makes more sense to move the SRC attribute of UL and LI to style sheets,
given that no popular browser has implemented it anyway (although it would
have been really nice and it would not have inhibited the use of style
sheets). Authors will then probably use something like:

<UL STYLE="list-style: url(http://foo.com/bar.gif) disc">

if they have to.

Marcus E. Hennecke
marcush@crc.ricoh.com        http://www.crc.ricoh.com/~marcush/