Re: Acronym for Cougar? -Reply

Charles Peyton Taylor (
Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:30:14 -0800

Message-Id: <>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 12:30:14 -0800
From: Charles Peyton Taylor <>
Subject:  Re: Acronym for Cougar? -Reply

(I sent this accidently only to Mark earlier this morning)

>>> Marc Salomon <> 07/19/96 11:07am >>>
>What about doing it in <SPAN CLASS="ACRONYM">HTML</SPAN> this
>way, <SPAN
>CLASS="PAUTHOR">Dave Raggett</SPAN> of the <SPAN

This brings up an interesting question: what need is 
there for new tags when we have stylesheets and span?

Personally, I think that it would be easier for all 
of us if those classes that are very commonly used 
become tags. It's a lot shorter to write <acronym> than 
<span class="acronym"> (shorter in the style sheet, too)
and it makes the author's intent easier to decipher.

>This approach would have win if carefully crafted for cases where
>span classes and metadata elements coincide.

What do you mean by "metadata elements"?

>Fight Tagitis!

I agree with not creating tags for formatting purposes, 
but I like the idea of markup for content.  I think that 
HTML would be a poor language with only <P>, <div>, <object>, 
and <span> within <body>.

>On Jul 19, 10:57, Dave Raggett wrote:
>> Subject: Re: Acronym for Cougar?
>> On reasons for adding the HTML 3.0 ACRONYM tag into Cougar:
>> > It would allow HTML to be written in a way that
>> > would be more accessible to speech-enabled browsers.
>> > For example, "NPS" would be pronounced "en Pea ess",
>> > not "nips"
>> This sounds like a good enough motivation to make it worth
>> while. On the same lines, it is probably worth adding some of
>> the other tags from HTML 3.0, e.g. ABBREV for abbreviations,
>> PERSON for names of people (as opposed to things), INS for
>> newly added text and DEL for struck out text.