Re: <NEWHTML>???

Liam Quinn (liam@htmlhelp.com)
Fri, 06 Mar 1998 08:36:53 -0500


Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980306083653.009c1a60@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 1998 08:36:53 -0500
To: Alex Fabrikant <afabrikant@smtpgtwy.ausd.k12.ca.us>, www-html@w3.org
From: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
In-Reply-To: <s4ff05b1.023@smtpgtwy.ausd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: Re: <NEWHTML>???

At 08:05 PM 05/03/98 -0800, Alex Fabrikant wrote:
>Yes, indeed, the new HTML models must, by definition, be backward
>compatible. However, implementing some elements as such is becoming
>an increasing problem. For example, to create a site based on cascading
>style sheets that still looks normal on older browsers requires a lot
>of effort -- more than it should, in my opinion.

It requires no effort [*] if you're using HTML and CSS properly, with HTML
giving the structure and CSS suggesting a possible presentation.  Browsers
that don't support CSS render the page with their default rendering, which
is often bland but perfectly readable and accessible if you're not abusing
HTML.

[*] However, there is significant effort required to use CSS without
getting bitten by bugs in "supporting" browsers.

>Yes, some minor equivalents have been created -- but if for each major
>new tag you have to create a new <NO...> tag, an unnecessarily large
>number of tags will be created. NOSCRIPT, NOFRAME, and NOLAYER exist
>already [not sure on the standard re. NOLAYER, but still] -- and each
>time a new feature is introduced, another replacement will need to be
>made.

Any element name that starts with "NO" signals a poor design, IMHO.  It's
no coincidence that NOSCRIPT, NOFRAMES, NOEMBED, and NOLAYER all originated
from Netscape.  Other extensions, like OBJECT and IFRAME, are able to
provide backwards compatibility seamlessly since they were better designed.

--
Liam Quinn
Web Design Group            Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
http://www.htmlhelp.com/    http://enhanced-designs.com/