- From: Scott Matthewman <scottm@danielson.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 1997 15:35:36 +0100
- To: <IDSamson@beauty.hsrc.ac.za>, <www-html@w3.org>, "Steven Champeon" <schampeo@hesketh.com>
> From: Steven Champeon <schampeo@hesketh.com> > To: Scott Matthewman <scottm@danielson.co.uk>; IDSamson@beauty.hsrc.ac.za; www-html@w3.org > Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available > Date: 9 July 1997 14:29 > > [snip] > Why would anyone in their right mind *want* to type <STRONG> when > they can type <B>? I don't *want* to type either - that's why I use an HTML editor ;) As I explained in a previous posting to www-html@w3.org, I think the DTD should be consistent. Deprecating a tag doesn't make it obsolete right away, but clearly indicates that there is a 'better' (or at least, more consistent) way of doing things. Any deprecated elements in HTML4.0 won't be obsolete until HTML5.0, probably - and even then they may still be included. Maybe the simplest way would be for the spec to simply acknowledge that the B and I tags break the "content/presentation separation" model, and that you have two choices: 1) Don't use them, and keep the model intact; 2) Sacrifice a small part (I nearly said element :-) ) of the model for the sake of brevity and presentation-independence. ---- 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
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 1997 10:36:55 UTC