- From: William F Hammond <hammond@csc.albany.edu>
- Date: 03 Nov 2002 13:58:48 -0500
- To: www-html@w3.org
Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi> writes:
> WYSIWYG is OK when you're laying out brochure or something that has
> only one output media (fixed size paper).
Even then there can be pitfalls, e.g. a mismatch between screen fonts
and printer fonts.
Please note, however, that discussion about how to produce documents
are off topic for this discussion about the specification of XHTML
except to the extent that it might bear on the specification.
> (X)HTML is simple enough language to
> type directly with a text editor.
Yes, but IMO it is better to use a text editor to write for an XML
document type admitting fully reliable translation to (X)HTML that is
more comfortable for authors since (X)HTML also must be simple enough
for fast rendering.
In this regard, i.e., the needs of authors vs. the needs of user
agents, I wonder if the HTML WG -- a committee, after all -- is of one
mind on the design goals for XHTML 2. I sense a tug of war across the
author v. user agent line in these discussions since the draft for
XHTML 2 was first mentioned here.
-- Bill
Received on Sunday, 3 November 2002 13:58:59 UTC