W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > September 2002

RE: Preload for <section>

From: Richard Norman <normri@samc.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:51:41 -0700
Message-Id: <sd92f6f7.056@samc.com>
To: <www-html@w3.org>

*shamefully*
No I have not been following the HTML strict.  I have been trying to
convert finally, but the location of the Center attribute is escaping
me.
 
But I am at least moving to XHTML 1.0 transitional until I am able to
get all the issues resolved.  We have lots of old code and Perl scripts
that created invalid HTML.  So we are beginning the process to clean all
that up.
 
But the idea of condensing the number of tags to more informative markup
is a good one.  I think that would make it easier to understand what
information is conveyed in a document while still rendering in browsers
with the look we have today.
 
Richard Norman
Web/Application Developer
Saint Agnes Medical Center

	-----Original Message-----
From: "Jelks Cabaniss" <jelks@jelks.nu> 
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:19 AM
To: <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Preload for <section>




	Richard Norman wrote: 

	> The <q> renamed to <quote>: 
>  
> I think this is a good thing in that it makes it more clear what is 
> being defined.  The argument about the table elements was brought up, 
> but in my experiences <tr> and <td> was very non descriptive.  If you 
> had something like <row> <column> and <cell> that would be clear and 
> very straight forward for someone to understand.  Yes you could learn 
> what TR and TD meant, but if the purpose is to be more descriptive for

> what the content is then we should consider this as well. 

	That was my pretty much my point.  We *could* do a wholescale
renaming 
of elements.  <ul> could become <list type="unordered">, and so on (tr, 
td, ol, dl ...), to be more "self evident" to someone who had never seen

HTML before. 

	But the WG doesn't appear to have done that except in one case:
<q> to 
<quote>.  I think they should take one approach or the other: wholescale

renaming, or keep the same names.  I can see many good reasons for the 
former, but I actually favor the latter.  There are too many other 
issues on the table (like whether XHTML 2 will ever see the light of 
day, considering current "requirements" being shoved on it ... :) 

	> That is my basic two cents on this issue, but I love the
direction 
> where everything is going.  I just need more time to understand 
> where things like the <center> tag and the align attribute are 
> replaced in CSS. 

	?  If you've been authoring in HTML 4.x Strict or XHTML 1.0
Strict, 
you'll have *already* been using CSS in lieu of <center> and align. 
XHTML 2 doesn't change that. 


	/Jelks 

**************************************************************************************************
The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential.
It is intended for the named recipient(s) only.
If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or  the 
sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any one or make copies.

**************************************************************************************************
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 15:01:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT