- From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 1996 17:13:42 +0200 (DST)
- To: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, www-style@w3.org
On Oct 9, 10:31am, Paul Prescod wrote: > At 04:29 PM 10/9/96 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote: > >It's a tradeoff; if you want a sprinkling of semantic hints and installed > >base compatibility, use class in text/html. If you want rich semantic > >markup and have no desire for widespread accessibility, use text/sgml > >(or application/sgml as appropriate). W3C is working to facilitate both > >approaches. > > Isn't it fair to desire rich semantic markup AND widespread accessibility? Yes. As of 9 Oct 1996 though, you can't have backward compatibility with the installed base as well. My original message specifically talked about 2.0 or 3.2 browsers. > I > just raise the point because I know that W3C is working on standards for > rich semantic markup and I hope that W3C staff and mailing list readers > don't see it as perpetually esoteric and inaccessible. No, far from it. But there are different approaches based on what the author wants to acheive. Sometimes, just <a class="ExternalLink" href="foo"> does the job; it works with exsting browsers and it serves to differentiate corporate from extermnal links (via a stylesheet). Sometimes, a custom-built DTD is the right way and you want to send over a DTD with the document or use <!doctype whatever with public and system identifiers, the latter using a URL. See: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/SGML/ -- Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ] Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C chris@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 1996 11:13:57 UTC