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

Scott E. Preece (preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com)
Fri, 31 May 1996 17:02:08 -0500


Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 17:02:08 -0500
From: preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
Message-Id: <199605312202.RAA10809@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: megazone@livingston.com, abigail@tungsten.gn.iaf.nl, www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: "Daniel W. Connolly"'s message of Thu, 30 May 1996 23:51:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Font-style vs. phrase elements (fwd) 

 From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
| 
| In message <199605291415.JAA20687@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>, Scott E. Preece
|  writes:
| >
| >Well, how could there be anything that takes advantage of DIV when DIV
| >is not yet standardized?
| 
| This is the attitude that has kept stylesheets (and PNG and ...)
| in the closet for years.
---

The word "standardization" was ill chosen.  I meant "when the feature
is not yet implemented broadly enough that authors would have a reason
to use it".  The phrase "de facto standard" does not verb attractively.

---
| Seems to me that a whole lot of stuff took advantage of HTML 2.0 long
| before RFC1866 was published.
| 
| For the nth time:
| 	1. proposal
| 	2. implementation experience
| 	3. standardization
---

This was, actually, exactly my point.  Content won't appear until
implementations support it and we won't know the right implementation to
standardize until we have content to validate its use.  [Actually, I'm
not completely happy with that "proposal" step - things have to be
pretty mature before there's anybody to propose to.]

I strongly support experimentation and standardization of proven
practice.

scott

--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
internet mail:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com