Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

Scott Matthewman (scottm@danielson.co.uk)
Wed, 9 Jul 1997 15:35:36 +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 15:35:36 +0100
Message-ID: <19970709143916167.AAA227@scott.danielson.co.uk>

> 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