Container model vs Switches (was: <IMAGE>? <TT> == <I>? toHell(NS))

Abigail (abigail@ny.fnx.com)
Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:26:49 -0500 (EST)


Message-Id: <199610310526.AAA22541@melgor.ny.fnx.com>
Subject: Container model vs Switches (was: <IMAGE>? <TT> == <I>? toHell(NS))
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 00:26:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Abigail" <abigail@ny.fnx.com>
In-Reply-To: <01IB9IN7WHDU00FGI3@SCI.WFBR.EDU> from "Foteos Macrides" at Oct 30, 96 07:27:24 pm

Foteos Macrides wrote:
++ 
++ 	The orginal question was what to do about
++ 	
++ 	<TT>teletype font</I>
++ 	
++ where the </I> is either a typo or an (ILLEGALLY!!!) interdigitated
++ end tag for an earlier <I> start tag.  And that discussion basically
++ has been about whether tags can be treated as just switches, a la
++ the original NCSA Mosaics and the MCOM_oops_copyright_infringement_NCOM
++ browsers, or as SGML conformant markup.  I'm suprised at what's being
++ claimed MSIE does with it, particularly if it's a version with style
++ sheet support, because that implies style sheets can be supported while
++ retaining "switch logic", and thus might not force NSN into greater
++ SGML compliance.

Well, it has always surprised me why style sheets need the container
model in stead of the switch model. A non-style sheet aware browser
might treat '<I>' as "add 1 to italic counter", '</I>' as "decrement
1 from italic counter", and print the text in italics if the italic
counter > 0. 
Now, with a style sheet, the I element can be configured to have
blue background and 12 points font. Why do I need a container model
for that? Just use 12 points and a blue background whenever italic
counter > 0.

Furthermore, does the model _matter_? Why should I care if the browser
use a container model, or a tree, or switches? As long as it does the
task right, (and reasonable efficient), that's ok, isn't?



Abigail