Re: HTML 3.2 PR: Miscellaneous + typos -Reply

Arnoud (galactus@htmlhelp.com)
Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:56:33 +0100


From: galactus@htmlhelp.com (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet)
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTML 3.2 PR: Miscellaneous + typos -Reply
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:56:33 +0100
Message-ID: <hLgky4uYOFeb089yn@htmlhelp.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <s2904ce9.088@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>,
Charles Peyton Taylor <ctaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil> wrote:
> >>> Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet <galactus@htmlhelp.com> 11/17/96 12:03pm >>>
> >always use the same color values. I would suggest that the specification at
> least
> >recommends the use of color codes instead of  color names.
> 
> Well, some browsers understand colors for backgrounds without understanding
> colors for text or links.  It's been my experience that these (like, say, 
> NCSA mosaic) don't understand color names.  

If a browser only supports part of the color attributes, then it's
rather seriously broken. It seems more serious to me that you can
specify a background color with a code (which is understood by
for example IBM Webexplorer) and the foreground with a name (which
that same browser doesn't understand). You then get the illegible
results.

Besides, as someone else already pointed out, if you're using an
editor to generate HTML, why would it matter? Color names are only
important when you're writing HTML by hand, can't count in hex and
don't have a color picker available.

> >The section on BLOCKQUOTE notes that block quotations are often rendered as
> >indented text. Is such a note necessary? It often leads to confusion about the
> >purpose of this element -- on Usenet, I see daily claims that
> ><BLOCKQUOTE> is the "indent tag".
> 
>   CSS! CSS! CSS!

That's the feeling I got for most of the stuffs in this draft..
especially with BASEFONT and FONT.

> >   Other possibilities for this area are a link to a document that
> >   presents the content of the document without the requirement
> >   for Java support.
> 
> Or an image map, as in the case of webmonkey (www.webmonkey.com).

Cool idea. It begs the question, if you *can* present the content
in an acceptable way without Java, why the need for the applet?

Galactus

- -- 
E-mail: galactus@htmlhelp.com .................... PGP Key: 512/63B0E665
Maintainer of WDG's HTML reference: <http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/>


-----END PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----