W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1996

Re: strength of extra-CSS style imperatives

From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:34:04 GMT
Message-Id: <199608230034.AAA18473@wiley.EBT.COM>
To: stephanos@hol.gr
CC: ngalarneau@concord6.powersoft.com, www-style@w3.org
>These should be depreciated. An idea would be that in Cougar, the EM,
>STRONG, CODE etc. tags be given 1-letter names while B I S U etc be given
>longer names to encourage useability and readability of the former. 

Good grief. HTML has enough prsentational markup already without
*encouraging* it's use, and discouraging the use of structural markup.

What on earth does <BOLD> mean to a blind user? What does <EMPH> mean?

This proposal shows a very clear *misunderstanding* of the funamaental
justification for CSS... or any stylesheet for that matter.

Sigh.
Received on Thursday, 22 August 1996 20:36:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:45 GMT