Re: Comments on HTMl 4 draft (9/Nov/1997)

Jordan Reiter (jreiter@mail.slc.edu)
Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:44:15 -0500


Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 15:44:15 -0500
Message-Id: <l03110700b0bc5227e393@[192.168.1.186]>
In-Reply-To: <199712161922.MAA01516@underworld.bigpic.com>
To: neil@bigpic.com
From: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>
Cc: Ian Hickson <exxieh@bath.ac.uk>, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Comments on HTMl 4 draft (9/Nov/1997)

=7FNeil St.Laurent felt an urge to reveal at 6:31 PM -0000 on 12/16/97:
> TT is used again to distinguish text, and is used very often to
> indicate something on the screen.  This one is likely the highest in
> priortiy for things to be removed.

Especially since, unlike BIG and SMALL, which have no equivalents in HTML,
TT has quite a number of logical elements which provide equivalent
rendering, namely: CODE, SAMP, KBD, and PRE, all of which tend to render a
monospaced font. While it is crucial to reinforce the idea of HTML as a
non-visual medium, it is also important to recognize that it is still being
used as such. I have found the BIG and SMALL tags immensely useful. I often
use SMALL when adding "footnotes" to documents, ie:
	This is of course made clear in the argument by Miller. <SMALL><A

	HREF=3D"#footnote1">[1]</A></SMALL>

There has also been a big discussion concerning common usage of tags such
as italic and bold in standard display of various formatting techniques,
such as the tradition of italicizing taxonomical (sp?) names.

-------------------------------------------------------
[           Jordan Reiter                             ]
[           mailto:jreiter@mail.slc.edu               ]
[  "It's well known that dead people are all sick     ]
[   because they're too depressing."                  ]
[   -- from http://www.icemcfd.com/cgi-bin/make_flame ]
-------------------------------------------------------