W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 1998

Re: Browser compatibility with implementation bugs

From: Todd Fahrner <fahrner@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 13:20:48 -0700
Message-Id: <v03102801b188e8bb06f4@[206.245.203.103]>
To: Ian Hickson <exxieh@bath.ac.uk>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Ian Hickson wrote (8:38 PM +0100 5/20/98):
" Todd wrote:
" >I do see reason to hope and believe that soon, mass-market browsers will
" >parse documents that begin with <?xml version="1.0"?> . They'd better be
" >well-formed, but apart from that, their elements and most of their grammar
" >might come straight from the HTML DTD(s) of your choice.
" 
" Much as I may hope, I still doubt that that will be any time soon.

5.0.

" Wow. I have enough trouble convincing people that MARKUP is more important
" than PRESENTATION. How hard will it be to explain that they can decide on
" the DTD they want, and can even invent their own...? That won't need a gear
" change, it'll need an engine change! Think about it: how many of the
" upcoming XML DTDs do you think will miss the boat and end up resembling
" PostScript more than the {ht|math}ML family?

I see nothing wrong with using markup to describe presentation. What's
perverse is using largely nonpresentational markup (such as HTML provides)
for this purpose, leveraging a perversely fixed stylesheet. Issues of
"document source integrity" aside, HTML and its default stylesheet are just
a really poor graphic design environment.


Todd Fahrner
mailto:todd@lowbrow.com
http://www.verso.com/agitprop/

The printed page transcends space and time. The printed page, the
infinitude of books, must be transcended. THE ELECTRO-LIBRARY.
	- El Lissitzky, 1923
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 1998 16:13:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:55 GMT