Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

Scott Matthewman (scottm@danielson.co.uk)
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 15:52:41 +0100


From: scottm@danielson.co.uk (Scott Matthewman)
To: <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 15:52:41 +0100
Message-ID: <19970710145625154.AAA96@scott.danielson.co.uk>

> 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. 

Browsers give visual clues to <DT>, yes, but *not necessarily* in the same
way. Style sheets allow web authors and web readers the option to *choose*
what those visual clues are.
 
> (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)

That's why there is the concept of "deprecation": an element or attribute
stays in the spec because it is commonly used in previous versions, but
alternatives which fit the model better exist and should be used in future.
[I don't disagree with keeping those elements in the DTD, as long as
they're either (a) consistent or (b) highlighted as being inconsistent ;) ]