Re: ReComments on Cougar DTD:

Sat, 20 Jul 1996 17:34:53 -0500 (EST)

Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 17:34:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
Subject: Re: ReComments on Cougar DTD:
Message-id: <01I7AYCZF6F60002N8@SCI.WFBR.EDU>

"Marcus E. Hennecke" <> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU> wrote:
>> "Marcus E. Hennecke" <> wrote:
>> >Good point! Another thing that should be possible in HTML (and that
>> >BTW was also in the DTD snippet that I had posted).
>> 	Correction.  It *is* possible with HTMLPLUS, and it *is* possible
>> with HTML 3.0.  Moreover, it has been, for quite some time, and still *is*
>> possible with a number of deployed clients.  The "should be possible"
>> applies, sadly, to HTML 3.2/Cougar.
>I am aware of that. In fact, I copied the part about <OL CONTINUE>
>straight from the HTML 3.0 draft (not that it is terribly complicated).

	Yes, I am aware that you are aware of that, and recall vividly
the lengthy and sound arguments Warren Steele and you posted about the
need to restore this markup when it was dropped in the HTML 3.2/Wilber
DTD.  The archiver for this list still has not been attended to, and
no one can access those or any subsequent messages to this list, so I
was again stressing that we are not discussing proposals for new markup.
It had been in existence for years, and implemented by a number of
clients.  Appended is a portion on my contribution to that discussion,
which ended with an expression of hope that the W3C would be permitted
to restore the markup.

	During the recent discussion about whether CENTER should be
depricated in HTML 3.2/Cougar, MegaZone wrote:

	"You *never* just drop tags from one release to the next -
	 dropping features is an extreme evil and you will get a
	 backlash from it."

That expresses a principle which characterized Web and HTML development
for many years, but let's face it folks, it was "obsoleted" on the
same day when CENTER entered the HTML 3.2/Wilber DTD.

	In any case, I do appreciate Dave Raggett's telling us
frankly that the restoration of this markup was discussed by the
W3C ERB, but that, without naming names, it was blocked.  Frank
information, whether you personally like the information or not,
is always preferable, IMHO, to advice that we take a "chill pill"
and "stay tuned" for more hype.

	I wonder though, given how strongly the markup is desired by
"consumers", and particularly since you just UL PLAIN (or TYPE="plain")
can't do OL CONTINUE via style sheets or a STYLE attribute, whether
there's any chance the Microsoft folks might add it to Explorer?


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545

On 17 May 1996 Foteos Macrides wrote:
	START is identical to SEQNUM.  The latter is the longer-standing
HTML+ attribute for specifying the initial value for an ordered list,
and the former is simply a reinvention of that wheel as we'll.  Clients
such as Lynx, UdiWWW, etc. treat them as synonyms, so it doesn't matter
which one is used in Wilbur, but if it were to follow the traditions
of the Web, it would at least mention the other with a suggestion that
clients also recognize it for maximum compatibility and effectiveness.

	TYPE is a Netscape invention, and a really good idea, albeit
that it depends on case-sensitive parsing of normally case-insensitive
attribute values.  But it is not the same as CONTINUE.  The latter
indicates whether to continue the count from the previous OL. It
also has been implemented in Lynx, UdiWWW, etc., and is very useful
when used in nested lists, or when a list is terminated to insert
another type of block, and then another list is started which is
a logical continuation of the preceding.  One can create the same
effect and semantic connotation in the display by counting previous
LIs, hoping one's count was accurate, and using START or SEQNUM for
the new list, but CONTINUE is easier, does not require one to re-count,
and edit all the START or SEQNUM values, when LIs are added or deleted
from preceding lists, and is more meaningful for indexers.  Also,
CONTINUE does not break any clients which failed to implement it.

	I hope the W3C will be permitted to restore the, for many of
us, sorely missed CONTINUE attribute.  If it would help to give it
another name, that would still be better than bannishing it from
the specs.


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545