Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)

Paul Prescod (papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca)
Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:39:53 -0500


Message-ID: <32DDA309.10E3@csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 22:39:53 -0500
From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
To: www-html@www10.w3.org
Subject: Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)

Chuck D'Antonio wrote:
> You will not convince someone that <indent> or <page> or <vr> or any of the
> other tags we've seen suggested on this list doesn't belong in HTML without
> convincing arguments about why it matters that HTML remain free of tags that
> apply only to presentation on one particular medium.

Creeping presentationism (B, FONT, etc.) have made it near impossible to argue that 
"HTML [should] remain free of tags that apply only to presentation." The beginning and 
end of any such discussion will be: "If presentation markup is so bad, why does HTML 3.2 
do it?" Which reduces us to shouting down individual proposals rather than making an 
argument based on design, architecture and direction.

 Paul Prescod