- From: Keith Bowes <keith_bowes@hotmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 09:42:23 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
>Why does it matter either way? Valid HTML is valid HTML Agreed. If we produce pages that conform to the latest standards, why be bothered by some archaic SGML statement? >BGSOUND doesn't have a CSS equivalent? You are mistaken: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/aural.html I guess I didn't explain myself well. I meant tags such as, but not limited to, BGSOUND should be added until a standard replacement is agreed on. I didn't mean there was already such a replacement. >What good would 'made-up' attributes do if nothing understands them. The pont of "made-up" attributes is to have an attribute that does nothing, but is used by Javascript to perform some interactive or dynamic action. Use your imagination. >Have a look at XML. At least you can define what 'made-up' attributes might do. I uploaded my HTML 5 page this moring for you people to see. It isn't finished because I was waiting for some CONSTRUCTIVE ideas, but you can view it anyway. I hope you can see my justification of the retention and improvement of HTML. URL: http://homepages.go.com/~movieplace/html5.html >Is this a joke? I do have a sense of humor, but I am serious about this. > 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. I'm sorry. I should have said "post-modern" HTML. The HTML of the future, where designers, software vendors, and officials are tuned in to the same station (maybe a few differences in frequency and amplitude, but still in the same six-megahetz band). Again, archaicisms of SGML are being given prevelance. >Have a look at: http://www.w3.org/TR/html40/intro/intro.html#h-2.4.1 Ah, the W3C- a typical case of high authority on an ego trip. Like HTML, the W3C has to change a bit too, or they'll always be greedy tyrants.
Received on Saturday, 23 October 1999 09:39:51 UTC