Re: end tags...

Peter Flynn (pflynn@curia.ucc.ie)
26 Sep 1996 11:20:44 +0100


Date: 26 Sep 1996 11:20:44 +0100
From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
Subject: Re: end tags...
To: msftrncs@htcnet.com
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-id: <199609261020.LAA18681@curia.ucc.ie>

> | Looking at their latest authoring tools, it's still <FONT FACE= SIZE=
> | STYLE= BLINK= BARF= BARK= ETC=> all the way. I was a little surprised
> at MS
> | Internet Assistant, as I thought all that stuff would have taken
> advantage
> | of MSIE's stylesheet feature. Next version, maybe.
> 
> No, all the things you mentioned there are for "backwards"
> compatibility ... and you know it... once they put the stuff in 2.0,
> they can't just take it out ... and MS's own site designers know that
> not everyone uses a CSS1 browser ...  this transittion to any kind of
> style will take a while ... since you guys didn't want to take the fast
> aproach ... you live with the slow one...

But that's where you're wrong: none of the <FONT FACE= SIZE= STYLE=
BLINK= BARF= BARK= ETC=> crud was in 2.0. These elements are precisely
non-HTML inventions by browser writers. Which is exactly why I said
that (a) backward compatibility is such a millstone, and (b) the
browser authors are starting to implement things in a more structured
manner.

///Peter