Message-Id: <199605142334.QAA00467@web1.calweb.com> Subject: Re: DIV/CLASS To: email@example.com Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 16:34:41 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lee Daniel Crocker" <firstname.lastname@example.org> In-Reply-To: <199605142148.AA026890508@w3.org> from "Dave Raggett" at May 14, 96 05:48:28 pm > This is fine for the forthcoming version of HTML which supports > style sheets. HTML 3.2 on the other hand captures the state of > HTML as deployed in early `96. ID and CLASS are therefore not > part of HTML 3.2. With all of the noise and religious bickering here lately, I'm generally grateful that the W3 bigwigs have stayed above the fray for the most part, but the statement above honestly frightens me. I'm not such a pedant that I care about <font> or <center>; let the folks use it, so long as I can write what I need to. But the statement above from someone as high up in the scheme of things as Raggett makes me question if W3 truly understands the needs of HTML users outside of browsers or even the Web--or whether they care. "The state of HTML" is not just "what browsers use". Search engines and conversion tools and internal documentation all need the simple, basic, compatible, frozen, everybody-agrees feature of <DIV CLASS="">. I have heard not one single objection to it. Everybody knows what it does, it won't conflict with anything in the works, and I need it today. So what if the big two don't happen to use it? Just do it. Hell, even the big two plan to support it. So what possible reason is there for excluding it? None. Just do it! If 3.2 were really just an encoding of current practice, then the DTD would have disallowed SHORTTAG. Allowing it when nobody supports it makes validation meaningless, but the fact that it's still there makes me think that either W3 really is thinking more than 5 minutes ahead, or else they are even more lost and unfocused than they are accused of.