Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 10:45:13 -0400 (EDT) From: "Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor" <email@example.com> To: "Chapman, Hass" <firstname.lastname@example.org> cc: email@example.com Subject: RE: Deprecation in HTML 4.0 In-Reply-To: <199707110620.IAA21943@se2000.sebank.se> Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.95q.970711104412.16545Bfirstname.lastname@example.org> On Fri, 11 Jul 1997, Chapman, Hass wrote: > ---------- > >From: "Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor" (reply to: > >email@example.com) > >This sounds like very good reasoning to me, but I get the impression that > >some elements are not being deprecated because they are ``popular''. > >(e.g. IMG, B, I, TT, <A NAME="foo">) This seems like a very silly reason > >not to deprecate elements (or attributes). The specs wouldn't force > >authors not to use theses elements. It is a suggestion. I think most > >people here would agree that the above list of elements (and attributes) > >shouldn't be used in pure HTML 4.0. (HTML 4.0 strict?) > > Why shouldn't IMG be used? IMG shouldn't be used because, like APPLET, it has been replaced by the OBJECT element. -- 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"