Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

Steven Champeon (schampeo@hesketh.com)
Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:29:46 -0400


Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970709092946.0075f030@mail.imvi.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:29:46 -0400
To: scottm@danielson.co.uk (Scott Matthewman), <IDSamson@beauty.hsrc.ac.za>,
From: Steven Champeon <schampeo@hesketh.com>
Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available
In-Reply-To: <19970709131303779.AAA231@scott.danielson.co.uk>

At 02:09 PM 7/9/97 +0100, Scott Matthewman graced us with:
> 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.

Why would anyone in their right mind *want* to type <STRONG> when 
they can type <B>? I'm restricting my question to the obvious fact
of one being shorter than the other. Never mind all the "markup vs.
presentation" arguments - I know them, and agree. But my point is that
the presentational markup *elements* (eh, Paul?) are *shorter* than
the pure structural markup elements. 

How about some new but shorter elements?

 <STRONG> -> <S>
 <EM> -> <E>

This way those of us who code by hand don't have to type these longer
versions. I know, I know, XML will save the world, but for now how 
about some realization of the effect that more abstract notions and
their longer terms has on the sheer size of the files produced.

To me, this is one of the flaws in HTML - the one which determined
why people use one set of elements over the others. By making the
presentational markup shorter and easier to type, it guaranteed that
the other markup would not be used but as an exception.

Steve


--
Steven Champeon                    |    What we do not understand 
http://www.hesketh.com/schampeo    |      we do not possess.
http://www.jaundicedeye.com        |          - Goethe