Re: Browser maximum WIDTH & HEIGHT! -Reply

Scott E. Preece (preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com)
Sun, 24 Mar 1996 17:28:41 -0600


Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 17:28:41 -0600
From: preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
Message-Id: <199603242328.RAA04171@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
To: S.R.E.Turner@statslab.cam.ac.uk
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: Stephen Turner's message of Sat, 23 Mar 1996 19:18:53 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Browser maximum WIDTH & HEIGHT! -Reply

   From: Stephen Turner <S.R.E.Turner@statslab.cam.ac.uk>
|   -> I assume authors would not feel compelled to specify a page size unless
|   -> they had a reason to (for instance, an image of a certain size)
|   Like they don't use <blink> unless there's a good reason to, you mean?
---

I think most use of BLINK is by people who have a specific reason for
using it.  What I was trying to say, by indirection, was that it would
be a bad thing if authors or (more likely) authoring tools turned the
ability to specify size into a default behavior of specifying a size,
just as it would be bad if authors or authoring tools decided that the
web-wide default should be to have the author's name in a BLINK at the
beginning of the document - *that* would be gratuitous.

It's perfectly reasonable to knock the existence of the BLINK element as
indicating presentation instead of structure.  On the other hand, if
Netscape had named the tag URGENT and its default behavior were to blink
the enclosed text, there would be nothing there to deplore.

scott

--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
internet mail:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com