Message-Id: <email@example.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 09:29:18 -0800 From: Charles Peyton Taylor <CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: email@example.com Subject: Re: DIV/CLASS: Mike Wexler: Re: HTML 3.2 -Reply >>> Dave Raggett <firstname.lastname@example.org> 05/14/96 01:48pm >>> > >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. I can see why you would exclude ID from 3.2, but IMHO, I don't think that lack of browser support for style sheets is a good reason for excluding the Class attribute. The difference is in what you could live with: you can't put ID in there because then people would think that you could link to elements that way, but you can put class in there because it doesn't affect anything. And you should do it now so that it will be easier to accommodate later. BTW: one thing that is missing from the definition of <div> that would be useful for authors to know: whether or not <div> implies a line break, and if so, when. From watching the behavior, it appears to imply a line break when used alone, but not when followed by a <p>. at least that's how it works in Netscape. >Check out the W3C drafts: WD-object and WD-css1 for a glimpse of >where things are going.