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

Re: strength of extra-CSS style imperatives

From: Stephanos Piperoglou <stephanos@hol.gr>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 09:34:03 +0300 (EET DST)
To: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
cc: ngalarneau@concord6.powersoft.com, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.960828093329.2523A-100000@trillian.hol.gr>
On Fri, 23 Aug 1996, Gavin Nicol wrote:

> >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.

Please note that I am proposing the exact opposite of what you are
complaining about.

= Stephanos Piperoglou = stephanos@hol.gr = http://users.hol.gr/~stephanos/ =
  Four lines in a .sig can't say enough about why you should visit my page!
"I want peace on earth and good will toward man"
"We're the United States Government, we don't do that sort of thing!"
                                    [ from the film "Sneakers" ]

                                                       ...oof porothika! (tm)
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 1996 02:35:23 GMT

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