Re: Font-style vs. phrase elements (fwd)

James K. Tauber (jtauber@library.uwa.edu.au)
Wed, 22 May 1996 17:26:47 +0800


Message-Id: <31A2DDD7.7F36@library.uwa.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 17:26:47 +0800
From: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@library.uwa.edu.au>
To: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Font-style vs. phrase elements (fwd)

MegaZone wrote:
[suggestion about nested DIVs]
> What does it buy me?[...]
> I don't see the advantage to this, what am I missing?

Primarily modularity of the document. What if you decided to split a big 
single document into little documents at some level of the hierarchy? Or 
combine a whole heap of little documents into one big document? What if 
separate authors were preparing sections but didn't know what level of 
the hierarchy they were going to exist at? What if a document fragment 
was included in one file at one level of the hierarchy but at another 
level in a different file?

This isn't necessary for a lot of things like personal pages or a 
company's top level page. But for any work involving large (possibly 
legacy) documents, possibly being published via dual media, carrying 
this sort of structural information is vital.

> And what about when I'm just tossing up a personal page that rambles 
> on and doesn't have a rigid structure?

That's why I'm suggesting HTML 3.2 Structured be a more restricted 
version (not replacement) of HTML 3.2 for those marking up *structured* 
documents. Those not marking up documents with an obvious structure can 
just use the less restrictive version.

-- 
James K. Tauber / jtauber@library.uwa.edu.au
University CWIS Coordination Officer
The University of Western Australia