- From: Ian Hickson <py8ieh@bath.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 22:50:02 +0000 (BST)
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
>> IMHO, CSS should only be *additional* information. > IMO, CSS should provide presentational suggestions. I agree entirely. I'm very tired today, my eloquence is not as it should be. >> [snip] > Ian, I simply don't follow this quantum logical leap. [sniiiip] Sorry, again I agree entirely with what you say here. I apologise for the lack of clarity in my previous message. > They are structural tags, which differentiates them from <RANT>, > which would necessarily be presentational. Right. This is the bit I disagree with. RANT is not necessarily presentational. A search engine could want to search for documents containing more "PRAISE" elements than "RANT" elements, if, for example, someone wanted to quickly find a favourable film review. It is just like ADDRESS is structural -- RANT is too (as would be it's functional brother PRAISE). You could say that the SAMP element is entirely presentational -- that too is untrue. The only problem is deciding exactly how many structural elements should make it into the DTD. And the items that are *not* in the DTD are those that CSS (ObOnTopic!) are used for. IOW, classes will be used much more with HTML than it will with custom XML DTDs. I have nothing against that. XML DTDs will be much closer to what the author needs than will the 'generic' HTML DTD, which was created originally for scientific documents. Of course, with everyone using their own DTD, web-wide search engines will still not be able to search for pages with more PRAISE than RANT elements. However, site-wide search engines will. </RANT> -- Ian Hickson
Received on Monday, 30 November 1998 17:50:07 UTC