Re: A suggested tag

BruceLeban@akimbo.com
Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:21:33 -0400 (EDT)


From: BruceLeban@akimbo.com
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 01:21:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199704130521.BAA15908@mail.internet.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: A suggested tag


>From:	msftrncs@htcnet.com (Carl Morris)
>The problem is that who ever devised enities didn't stop to think about
>backwards support or forwards support, what ever.  An enity should have
>been designated as "&name;" only, no options.  It then should have been
>documented that you don't support "name" enity, skip it!

Well it's defined as precisely the opposite. If you don't support an 
entity, display the entity name directly. Of course a better syntax or 
displaying it differently would be useful. E.g., I think a normal user 
might find
    2(pi)r   or   2{pi}r   or   2[pi]r
more readable than
    2&pi;r
although that is certainly better than
    2r
if we just ignored the entity!

The real problem is that there's no ALT attribute for entities. Something 
like this would be nice:
    <ENTITY NAME="pi" ALT="(pi)">
    <ENTITY NAME="shy" ALT="">
which would define the alt text for these two entities if the browser 
doesn't support them and do nothing if the browser does.

    --- Bruce Leban
    Akimbo Systems
    http://www.akimbo.com/globetrotter
    Publish on the web without learning HTML! (Really.)