- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 21:18:41 +0200
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>, 'Anne van Kesteren' <annevk@opera.com>, www-html@w3.org, public-html@w3.org
On Mon, May 07, 2007 at 10:12:09AM -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > > What *exactly* is wrong with providing a new means for Prescriptivism? > > Surely this would be a "Good Thing", and a move forward? > > It's all well and good to introduce new ideas, but *only* if > we can get a critical mass of the web using them. There's a problem with that cat, to paraphrase MiB. We have, from the HTML I analyse - it's part of what /I/ have done the last five years - not quite yet reached the point where people consistenly use the H1 to H6 header elements. It's taken us a decade to achieve, well, very little. But it /is/ improving. Slowly - by way of education. The argument that we should introduce only such ideas that we can get a critical mass from means we can retire and let people happily play with their FONTs and MARQUEEs. Should we really not try to introduce also such elements and techniques that can /inspire/ authors to do more? > Having yet another W3C HTML spec where if you code to it you don't > interoperate with the bulk of the web is... well... boring, > isn't it? I dunno. I code to HTML 4.01 Strict, and damned if not most of the web doesn't much care WHAT they use as long as it looks right. -- - Tina Holmboe
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 19:18:49 UTC