Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

Scott Matthewman (scottm@danielson.co.uk)
Wed, 9 Jul 1997 14:09:23 +0100


From: scottm@danielson.co.uk (Scott Matthewman)
To: <IDSamson@beauty.hsrc.ac.za>, <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 14:09:23 +0100
Message-ID: <19970709131303779.AAA231@scott.danielson.co.uk>

> If <U> is deprecated, why isn't <TT>, <XMP>, <SAMP>, <MENU>, <DIR>, ...?

XMP is obsolete and no longer part of the HTML4.0 spec; PRE should be used.

MENU and DIR *are* deprecated.

SAMP is used to represent samples of program code, so has a contextual
emphasis.

I can't think of a valid enough reason why TT shouldn't be deprecated,
since it's a presentational rather than content-based tag.

Similarly, I think B and I should be deprecated. STRONG and EM are
preferable.

> I don't like the way things have to be defined in the <HEAD> tag. Surely 
> all these modifications should form part of the CSS spec, and not change 
> the HTML spec entirely.

Not sure I understood this comment completely: are you objecting to the
STYLE element being in the HEAD element? That's a second choice anyway: a
preferable option is in a LINK'd style sheet, so that multiple documents
can share the same style.

HTML 4.0 *doesn't* define how the STYLE element configures the
presentational display. CSS is just one possible style sheet encoding
system. All that the new draft spec does is to say that presentational
aspects of a document should be grouped together and should be
configurable.

----
Scott A. Matthewman, Danielson Limited <scottm@danielson.co.uk>
Tel: +44 (0)1296 24478. Fax: +44 (0)1296 392141
----
"I don't envy you the headache you'll have in the morning. In the meantime,
sleep well and dream of large women." -- The Princess Bride

----------
> From: Ian Samson <IDSamson@beauty.hsrc.ac.za>
> To: www-html@w3.org
> Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available
> Date: 9 July 1997 13:04
> 
> On  8 Jul 97 at 11:23, Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>, wrote:
> 
> > >Feedback is welcome on the structure of the draft as well as
> > >the technical content. I would like to make the specification
> > >as easy to understand as possible for a wide range of people.
> > 
> > I am somewhat bewildered by the sudden surge of "deprecated" attributes
and
> > tags.  I recognize that the existence of style sheets does make it
> > possible to indicate the appearance of the web page, but I question the
> > assumption that everyone has access to a browser that supports them;
> > especially a browser that supports them correctly.  Assuming that most
> > users will not be using the latest versions of software (heck, I still
use
> > Netscape 3.0), then it is foolish to assume that style sheets can cover
> > your problems. Only the newer browsers from Netscape and Explorer
support
> > style sheets, and they do so in an unconsistent and incomplete form.
> 
> I am most concerned that familiar syntax will become obsolete.
> 
> > I have attempted using the BIG and SMALL tags in my documents to avoid
the
> > use of FONT SIZE= and have found it to be limiting and unpredictable. 
For
> > pages where informational content is key, I could certainly use simple
> > HTML formatting in conjunction with style sheets, but for pages that
> > depend on visual appearance, especially for businesses, I will probably
> > continue using these tags.
> 
> If <U> is deprecated, why isn't <TT>, <XMP>, <SAMP>, <MENU>, <DIR>, ...?
> 
> I don't like the way things have to be defined in the <HEAD> tag. Surely 
> all these modifications should form part of the CSS spec, and not change 
> the HTML spec entirely.
> 
> I will comment further once I have fully digested the implications.
> 
> 
> ----------
> Ian Samson
> WebMaster & Internet Systems Developer (SBN/MSDN Member, HWG Member)
> Voice:  (+27(0)12) 302 2013
> mailto:IDSamson@beauty.HSRC.ac.za
> http://www.hsrc.ac.za/
> See my homepage at: http://home.global.co.za/~idsamson
> --
> Opinions expressed in this message are my own 
> and do not reflect official policy of the HSRC.
> --