- From: David G. Durand <dgd@cs.bu.edu>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 13:56:10 -0400
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 12:56 PM 9/27/96, Paul Prescod wrote: >At 10:43 AM 9/27/96 -0400, David G. Durand" (David G. Durand wrote: >> I like the consistency and simplicity of these rules, but the lack of >>any way to have a "verbatim" element is a fatal flaw. Pandering to typists >>is not a good idea, but removing useful functionality for the sole sake of >>preserving compatibility is far worse. > >Isn't a verbatim element just text-entry convenience? Why should it be >preserved instead of the ability to use newlines as formatting around tags? > > Paul Prescod Yes, that is true, but on a practical note, I cannot see that we are heading for wide acceptance if we rule it out. I was not the first on this list to raise the issue of vebatim-style elements. This is not going to help us make our case to the currently unconvinced. We are taking a common, reasonable, well-established usage, and making it impossible, solely for compatibility with a feature of SGML that isn't popular, easy to explain, or widely understood. -- David RE delenda est --------------------------------------------+-------------------------- David Durand dgd@cs.bu.edu | david@dynamicDiagrams.com Boston University Computer Science | Dynamic Diagrams http://www.cs.bu.edu/students/grads/dgd/ | http://dynamicDiagrams.com/
Received on Friday, 27 September 1996 13:52:27 UTC