Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

jptxs (jptxs@idt.net)
Wed, 09 Jul 1997 10:51:46 -0400


Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19970709105146.00692918@smtp.idt.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 10:51:46 -0400
To: scottm@danielson.co.uk (Scott Matthewman)
From: jptxs <jptxs@idt.net>
Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available
Cc: <IDSamson@beauty.hsrc.ac.za>, <www-html@w3.org>,
In-Reply-To: <19970709143916167.AAA227@scott.danielson.co.uk>


Scott Matthewman wrote:
"Any deprecated elements in HTML4.0 won't be obsolete until HTML5.0,
probably - and even then they may still be included."

speaking form the perspective of a very small fish in this pool, the
removal of current HTML elements had best be VERY carefully considered and
implamented.  i don't know if any of the decision makers would really care,
but you could potentially have a lot of very pissed people out there if
their pages all of the sudden didn't render anymore because they were using
out-of-date code.

one of the wonders of HTML [3.2 and down] is it's intuative simplicity.  to
make something bold, enclose it in B's.  this makes sense to even those who
have trouble using the simplest features of their own computer.  that is
why all of the [addmittedly annoying] homepages have cropped up by the
millions.  to shut out all the people who code HTML because they read about
how to do it on the web one day and found it was easy would be a real
shame, and would definitely take a good deal of the world-wide out of the
web.  

maybe i'm misunderstanding here, and all those old documents will be safe
so long as they refer to older DTD's and the like, but i don't think so.
so i'm just issuing a word of caution from a code-minnow to all you
code-sharks that you have allowed people to do things with HTML that
non-coders have never been able to do before, and to suddenly take that all
away over some concerns that would never even cross a minnows mind would be
a real shame.

jonathan