Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

Steven Champeon (schampeo@hesketh.com)
Wed, 09 Jul 1997 15:50:34 -0400


Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19970709155034.0070f5c8@mail.imvi.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 15:50:34 -0400
To: PatrickMc@usa.net, Paul Prescod <papresco@technologist.com>
From: Steven Champeon <schampeo@hesketh.com>
Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available
Cc: Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>, www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <33C3E505.C5B15734@usa.net>

At 09:22 PM 7/9/97 +0200, Patrick McElhaney graced us with:
> Paul Prescod wrote:
> > No, you still don't understand. <P> is not the p tag. It is a P
> > start-tag. </P> is the P end tag. <P>abcd</P> is a complete P element.

Paul, for crying out loud. Next thing you're going to be quoting from
the Book of Goldfarb. I ought to knock you for not clearly specifying
that "abcd" as used above was of course merely a placeholder for #PCDATA.
And the question arises, is <P>abcd</P> really the complete element,
since it can contain #PCDATA? What about those elements which do not
allow #PCDATA but which allow #CDATA? 

We're talking about the difference between referring to something in
theory and in practice. And <P> is the worst example, since it has
been the center of so much controversy over its proper use.

> That's a new one to me. Is there such a thing as a <P> start tag or a
> <P> end-tag? What do you call <IMG>?

A tag. ;-)

I mean, come on, Paul - at least he wasn't referring to *attributes* as
tags, as in "the HREF tag" and "the ISMAP tag"...

Steve

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