Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

Rob (wlkngowl@unix.asb.com)
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 10:03:20 -0500


Message-Id: <199707101406.KAA22068@unix.asb.com>
From: "Rob" <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
To: Jim Wise <jimw@numenor.turner.com>,
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 10:03:20 -0500
Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available
CC: www-html@w3.org


Ok, so what about a <FILENAME> or <URL> element? That would be
*very* useful IMO, since many authors (myself included)  are using
<TT> or <I> at the moment.

In defense of U, B, I, and TT: there are times where one prefers a 
visual emphasis without the logical emphasis. One common use is with 
description lists (DL element): <DT> is highlighted visually.  There 
are situations where visual cues are useful. 

(Yes, StyleSheets are perfect for this, but not everyone uses a
browser that supports them; looking at my logs I can see plenty of
people are Using Netscape 2.0 and 3.0 and MSIE 2.0 and even Mosaic
and Lynx)

My own rule of thumb is imagine how a document is presented on a 
reader for the blind. STRONG and EM would vocally emphasize the text, 
where B, I, etc. would be ignored.

--Rob

On Thu, 10 Jul 1997  Jim Wise <jimw@numenor.turner.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
> 
> > I often use TT for inline filenames/extensions, such as:
> > 
> >   BinHex (<TT>.hqx</TT>) files and StuffIt (<TT>.sit</TT>) files...
> [..]
> It would be more correct to use <KBD>, <CODE>, <SAMP>, or <VAR> here,
> depending on your context.  Again, the point being that any of these
> give the browser more information as to your intentions than simply
> specifying a typeface does.


 
---
Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl (wlkngowl@unix.asb.com)
Se habla PGP.
http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl