Re: For the future...

Maurizio Codogno (
Tue, 14 May 1996 14:52:02 +0200

Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 14:52:02 +0200
From: (Maurizio Codogno)
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: For the future...

MegaZone says:

% >   Many say that <BANNER> is still needed, even if Frames
% >are implemented, or Marquees are slowed down to a standstill.
% Yes.  *PLEASE* inpliment this!  It is not very complicated, and it would
% be nice to have a generally accepted way of adding fixed navigation bars
% to pages without having frames and the associated complexity.

provided vendors want to implement it :-( I am more and more dubious.

<FOOTNOTE> (or <FN>) should also be simple to implement, at least as a

% >   <LI> should also allow SRC as well as TYPE.
% This I'm not sure about.  If we add SRC to UL, do we need SRC here?
% Or better yet, vice-versa?

Well, the SRC in LI could override the one in UL - so you can choose 
whether to use uniform bullets or change them for every item.

% How about <TAB>?  I don't mean we have to do the full 3.0 thing with
% ID and TO, but just a simple way to allow authors to do indenting?

Last year, when the 3.0 draft came out, there were a lot of comments
about <TAB>, most of them because it is difficult to determine how much to
tab. A simple thing to do is to decide a standard unit of
measure (say, 1 enn, which scales gracefully), let people use this with
a relative SIZE attribute *and* let it become a container. After all, 
if we want to use it as a way to indent text (since <QUOTE> has many
different implementation) we can suppose the text cam be longish...)

% It would be easier to compare if we had a detailed spec on 3.2 as we do for
% 3.0 at <>