Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

Jordan Reiter (jreiter@mail.slc.edu)
Wed, 9 Jul 1997 03:06:53 -0400


Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 03:06:53 -0400
Message-Id: <l03010d04afe8af82f020@[198.77.183.164]>
In-Reply-To: <33C2813D.4E7AAABA@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
To: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
From: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>
Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available
Cc: www-html@w3.org

At 6:04 PM -0000 7/8/97, Paul Prescod wrote:
>[1] The new spec. is quite clear that your usage of the word "tag" is
>incorrect. It always was, but now it says so outright.
Hmm... In my mind this is a *language* issue similar to grammar arguments
I've gotten in.  Some words or grammar usages are held to be commonly
acceptable.  And while certainly the underlying meaning of the
issue--elements are actual document peices, while tags (start or end) are
put into documents to show (if necessary) where these elements are--shows
that the use of the term TAG is incorrect, the practical upside is that
when I learned HTML I was told they were tags, most people conceptualize
them as tags, and even now that I know that they really are elements, I
still think of most elements as little bits of text strung out between two
(if an end tag is necessary) *tags*.  And while there is a P element, there
is also a P tag:  <P>  Hence, as I conceptualize my coding as entering in
tags which will be eventually conceptualized somehow, somewhere, as
*elements*...well...

I still am gonna call 'em tags.  It's a nasty, filthy, disgusting habit.
Thank goodness I don't smoke too. :-7

PS: Any and/or all grammatical mistakes in this message are there for
humerous/demonstrative purposes.

--------------------------------------------------------
[                    Jordan Reiter                     ]
[            mailto:jreiter@mail.slc.edu               ]
[ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ]
[  The universe got you involved."  --Hal Lipset, P.I. ]
--------------------------------------------------------