Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

Walter Ian Kaye (
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 09:21:43 -0700

Message-Id: <v03102828afeab9ac3ad4@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 09:21:43 -0700
From: Walter Ian Kaye <>
Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

At 8:27a -0400 07/10/97, Liam Quinn wrote:
 > At 09:53 PM 09/07/97 -0700, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
 > >At 9:29a -0400 07/09/97, Steven Champeon wrote:
 > > >
 > > > Why would anyone in their right mind *want* to type <STRONG> when
 > > > they can type <B>? I'm restricting my question to the obvious fact
 > > > of one being shorter than the other.
 > >
 > >Well, you could also copy/paste, or drag&drop, or use a macro, etc.
 > >It does clutter up the text, though, and for this reason I prefer
 > ><B> and <I> -- readability.
 > >
 > > > the effect that... their longer terms has
 > > > on the sheer size of the files produced.
 > >
 > >Yes, this is also an issue. I am not keen on wasting bandwidth on
 > >*anything*, whether graphics *or* text.
 > So if you were using JavaScript or Java you would always use one-letter
 > variables to save bandwidth?

Where appropriate, sure. Every little bit (byte) helps...
(I avoid Java and JavaScript as much as possible; I only use JavaScript
sparingly for occasional onMouseOver window.status help messages to guide
the user about what to click when, and never ever ever use it for basic

 > If you want readability, then you want
 > elements like STRONG that are explicit in what they mean.

I was referring to editing the source code. The greater the ratio of
rendered text to markup, the better. (This is one of the things I like
best about style sheets -- gets the gunk out from the text!:)

  Walter Ian Kaye <boo_at_best*com>    Programmer - Excel, AppleScript,
          Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML     Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter