Re: ISO and HTML

Chad Owen Yoshikawa (chad@CS.Berkeley.EDU)
Wed, 2 Apr 1997 15:42:54 -0800 (PST)


From: Chad Owen Yoshikawa <chad@CS.Berkeley.EDU>
Message-Id: <199704022342.PAA05071@whenever.CS.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: ISO and HTML
To: Neppster@compuserve.com (Patrick Nepper)
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 15:42:54 -0800 (PST)
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <199704021817_MC2-13AB-D8E4@compuserve.com> from "Patrick Nepper" at Apr 2, 97 06:17:08 pm

> 
> On  Wed, 02 Apr 1997 05:48:37 Paul Prescod wrote:
> 
> >DIR and MENU have not found market acceptance >after several years. They
> >should not even be in HTML 3.2 which was >supposed to describe "current
> >practice."
> 
> Am I wrong or is it a bad idea to remove DIR and MENU completely?
> The difference between DIR, MENU and normal ULists has always been
> its content.
> If you want to automatically evaluate documents and for example search for
> all docs containing DIRs or extract these DIRs, this job will be hard to
> fulfill if you just
> have ULs, where the tag says nothing about its content.
> That's why I think it has been the right choice to have these tags in
> Cougar (in my opinion
> not only for backwards compatibility).


I agree - I would like to see these tags remain.  It's especially
useful to know the author's intention (MENU vs another list) when 
trying to develop a stylesheet to display the content.

-Chad Yoshikawa

-- 
Finger me for my pgp public key
Today's random buzzword: digital m-bone