Re: HTML 4.0 draft available (fwd)

Stephanos Piperoglou (spip@hol.gr)
Sat, 12 Jul 1997 00:34:47 +0300 (EET DST)


Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 00:34:47 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Stephanos Piperoglou <spip@hol.gr>
To: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199707092344.QAA17283@eve.livingston.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970712002205.546B-100000@fenchurch.hol.gr>

On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, MegaZone wrote:

> > <EM> -> <E>
> 
> Is this really worth it?  IMHO, NO.

I*M*HO, the only useful thing to do here is define a series of emphasis
elements, E1 through E6, analogous to the heading elements. This way we just
say "this is very slightly emphasized, this is more emphasized" etc.

We then use the stylesheet to tell the user agent how we would *like* the
emphasis for each level to be rendered (italic, bold, bold-italic, small
caps, or something else for speech rendering and so on) and be consistent
with non-CSS *but* latest-HTML-version supporting browsers.

Of course, all this is moot, because the more we do this to HTML, the more
we come close to XML :). Most of the problems cited in this list are solved
in XML... if you're obligated to provide a stylesheet, there will be no
controversy concerning what your <BIBREF> or <MYPORTRAIT/> tag means or how
it should be rendered. So there. Be happy, use HTML 4.0, and get used to the
idea of SPAN's for special meanings. Then when XML comes along, just replace
your <SPAN CLASS=foobar>'s with <FOOBAR>'s and you're on the road again.

I, personally, would use EM and STRONG, but define them explicitly in my
stylesheet. As some have said, use search-and replace (or even a more
complex authoring mechanism if you author in bulk... write it up in MSWord
or LaTeX and convert, and let your filter write element names in lowercase
so they can be compressed better, as the HTML spec wisely recommends).

Now if ONLY someone would give us a browser with full support for HTML 4.0
and CSS1, with all its other features, however useful, not conflicting with
these. THEN I'd be happy, i.e. if Netscape didn't choke on

<OBJECT TYPE="image/png" DATE="foo.png">A nice, compressed, lossless
image</OBJECT>

(You do NOT want Explorer 3.0 to see this and think it's an ActiveX control.
Frankly, I don't care; but I do care if there is *no* way to render my pages
on *any* browser. I'm just waiting for the GNU Web Browser myself, confident
that it will... and I can toss Win95 out the 20th floor window for good)

Oh, yeah, last but not least, congratulations Mr. Ragett and everyone else
on the HTML WG... And let's for once hope that MS's promise (on their
website, at the IE4 download page) that the release version will have full
HTML 4.0 support, and their promise (on this list) that it will have full
CSS1 support, hold water.

--
    Stephanos "Pippis" Piperoglou - http://users.hol.gr/~spip/index.html
All I wanted in my life was a little love and a lot of money. In that order.
                [ Failure is a crime. Defeat; an atrocity! ]

                                                   ...oof porothika