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, 1923Received 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