Re: HTML 3.2

Charles Peyton Taylor (CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil)
Tue, 07 May 1996 14:39:35 -0800


Message-Id: <s18f60b3.005@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 14:39:35 -0800
From: Charles Peyton Taylor <CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject:  Re: HTML 3.2 

At first, I was really happy to see Wilbur.
After looking at the DTD, I though "My, that 
pig has green scales ..."

>>> Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com> 05/07/96 08:50am >>>
>At 4:48p 05/07/96, Dave Carter wrote:
>>I have just looked at the html 3.2 draft, and it is NOT a step
>forward
>>from 3.0. There are netscapeisms in there, and this stinks.
>Apart from
>><center>, another example is the BGCOLOR attribute on <BODY>,
>another
>>is the plethora of presentation forcing attributes to <TABLE>.
>Quite
>>frankly this shows why standards cannot be left to commercial
>>organisations. I, for one, will stick to html 3.0,
>
>If you are the only one, what will that accomplish? ;)
>Sorry but the question is inevitable!

This is true: without vendor support, using html 3
tags was pretty much pointless.  It would be nice
if the W3C put out standards for a logical, more
functional HTML, and then the vendors coded to 
that spec, rather than the other way around. (MS 
was doing a good job controlling the industry, 
thank you very much :) .)  Dan C. mentioned that 
things would be added/modified this summer, so 
perhaps we'll see a (somewhat) customer-driven 
effort.

Meanwhile, I'll go delete my <banner> tags.

>>for its greater functionality, particularly <math>, and to
>>a certain extent style sheets,
>Is there something about "Netscape compatibility" which precludes
>style=
> sheets? I don't think so. 

No, but I think the effort put out in adding 
presentation markup in HTML as opposed to 
CSS might cause CSS to lose user focus and
fade away.

On the good side, Wilbur's DTD says " Browsers must 
avoid showing the contents of .. [the script and style
elements]" which means I can put Style attributes in
my document and an HTML 3.2 compliant browser won't
screw it up.  

But WHY is there no CLASS attribute?
The browsers don't have to do anything with it, 
but it should be there for those of us who are 
experimenting with Styles and Arena. 

I feel I should be able to use the class attribute 
and still have my document validate. (This is
kinda important when you want to do web pages 
for a living.)

>Was there a particular comment which
>led you to=
> your somewhat fatalistic conclusions, or do you just have a
>vendetta=
> against Netscape? Your concern is admirable, but I think your=
> disappointment is a bit premature...

*My* disappointment is caused by not being
able to use the neat stuff in HTML 3 (the 
March '95 one).

For example: 
<FIG> ... I know there has been
      a lot of discussion, but in my book, 
      <Fig> rules. Ditto with <caption>.

<UL src="%url"> *many* people use graphics for
      Bullets, so why not make it easier?

<UL Plain> how hard could it be to just
      *not* use bullets?

<HR src="%url">  makes your page look better
      in lynx or any other browser.  Conversely,
      how does "Dash, Dash, Dash, Dash, Dash..." etc.
      sound out loud?  (From the alt text to a speech
      synthesizer.)

Instead, I get to use <Center>.  

joy.

Why is <center> even in there when we have
<DIV align=center>?



>-Walter
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>________
>    Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>     Programmer - Excel,
>AppleScript,
>          Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM,
>FoxPro, HTML
> http://www.natural-innovations.com/     Musician - Guitarist,
>Songwriter