Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 11:15:29 -0400 (EDT) From: "Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Scott Matthewman <email@example.com> cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available In-Reply-To: <19970710150924434.AAA278@scott.danielson.co.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95q.970710111151.19570Aemail@example.com> On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Scott Matthewman wrote: > > To support <FILENAME> new browsers will have to be made. To support CSS, > > nw browers have to be made. It would be pointless to create a <FILENAME> > > element because if browers supported this, then they would also support > > <SPAN CLASS=Filename>, which is a better solution. > > To support HTML 4.0 new browsers will have to be made. > Let's all go home now ;-) > > A FILENAME element fits the model in that it's contextual; I guess it has > extra subtleties compared to, say, SAMP. Sounds OK to me... If we support FILENAME, then what? There are millions of possible contextual mark up. As I understand this is the whole reason why GML was abandoned for SGML. The solution to this problem is to use XML. But HTML 4.0 isn't XML. I could live with FILENAME added, but why that one and not others? We have to draw the line somewhere. Since we have a general CSS solution, I think the fewer the better. -- Russell O'Connor | firstname.lastname@example.org <http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/%7Eroconnor/> "And truth irreversibly destroys the meaning of its own message" -- Anindita Dutta, "The Paradox of Truth, the Truth of Entropy"