Re: Font-style vs. phrase elements

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Tue, 21 May 1996 10:38:25 -0400


Message-Id: <m0uLsZu-0002UPC@beach.w3.org>
To: Benjamin Franz <snowhare@netimages.com>
Cc: Warren Steel <mudws@mail.olemiss.edu>, rnewman@cybercom.net,
Subject: Re: Font-style vs. phrase elements 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 20 May 1996 09:49:33 MST."
             <Pine.LNX.3.92.960520090730.8407B-100000@ns.viet.net> 
Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:38:25 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <Pine.LNX.3.92.960520090730.8407B-100000@ns.viet.net>, Benjamin Fran
z writes:
>On Mon, 20 May 1996, Warren Steel wrote:
>
>
>>    I have no idea, nor do I care.  Nobody has yet explained to me
>> why this tag is necessary or desirable.  I have already demonstrated
>> that it results in a net loss in communication over the World Wide
>> Web.
>
> [chop]
>
>Enough.
>
>A) Nothing requires *YOU* to use FONT.

I think you missed his point (and the point of this discussion forum).

We're here to decide how the system _should_ work as a whole, and in
particular, how the specs will read, and how the implementations (at
least the ones we have control over) will work, and how the books
will read...

I'd prefer that the "how to hack table markup to look _just so_ on
the limited implementations we have to today" threads be taken
to USENET or the HTML writer's guild or some other more appropriate
forum.

Dan

p.s. I still haven't seen much in the form of suggested wording
for a spec, test cases, example documents, ... (with the noteable
exception Joe English's DTD comments.)