W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > October 1999

RE: Future version of HTML!?

From: David Norris <kg9ae@geocities.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 06:01:49 -0500
To: "Keith Bowes" <keith_bowes@hotmail.com>
Cc: <www-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NABBJAELJCIBPNFJODIGAEAAGBAA.kg9ae@geocities.com>
> 1.  No DOCTYPE required.  However, if not specified, the
> latest version is assumed.

DOCTYPE is not required by SGML, although the HTML references state
that it is.  Why does it matter either way?  Valid HTML is valid HTML,
if you want to be able to create sloppy documents then why even bother
follow the HTML guidelines at all.

> 2.  Add commonly used tags and attributes that have no
> standard/CSS equivalents (among the primary candidates is

BGSOUND doesn't have a CSS equivalent?  You are mistaken:

> 3.  Allow "made-up" attributes, creating a more powerful DOM
> (this is already allowed in Internet Explorer).

What good would 'made-up' attributes do if nothing understands them.
Have a look at XML.  At least you can define what 'made-up' attributes
might do.

> 4.  Stop downplaying HTML features just because they're
> presentational.  Modern HTML should break the barriers of
> prior versions and allow presentational features, especially
> those of hypertext (eg, FRAMES, INLINE FRAMES, and BACKGROUND
> SOUND) and those that can't be replaced by stylesheets and
> newer constructs (especially FRAMES).

Is this a joke?  You really should study the HTML and CSS specs.  You
obviously haven't a clue.  Presentational elements are blatantly
incompatible with the basic concepts behind 'modern' HTML.
Have a look at:

,David Norris
  World Wide Web - http://www.webaugur.com/dave
  Page via mail - 412039@pager.mirabilis.com
  ICQ Universal Internet Number - 412039
  E-Mail - dave@webaugur.com
Received on Saturday, 23 October 1999 07:06:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:05:51 UTC