- From: Joe English <jenglish@crl.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 20:06:16 -0700
- To: www-html@www10.w3.org, www-style@www10.w3.org
Lou Montulli <montulli@strumpet.mcom.com> wrote: > > Perhaps; perhaps not. If you think they're good ideas, why not > > submit a formal proposal to the HTML working group? > > They have been. I came with a list of ideas to the last IETF and > presented them to Dave Raggert and whoever else that would listen. Ah. Could you post your ideas to html-wg@oclc.org too? That way it'll get archived for reference purposes. (Plus, as far as I know, if it's not posted to the mailing list it "doesn't count"; please correct me if I'm wrong.) > > [ "if LINK, ALINK, and VLINK, why not LINKICONPLACEMENT etc.?" ] > > There is a big difference here. We implemented BODY BACKGROUND > and found that it was impossible to use without TEXT, LINK and VLINK > because you could use a background that caused the text and > links to become unreadable. We therefore had no choice but > to add the attributes to make backgrounds usable. That makes sense; I still think that LINK, VLINK, and ALINK are poorly named at best, and at worst the third step down a very slippery slope. But that's a philosophical issue... > [...] > Just tell netscape to always use your background image or color > and ignore any set by the document. You can do that in the > prefs or in your Xresources. Aha! Why couldn't I find this before? --jenglish@crl.com
Received on Tuesday, 18 July 1995 23:09:51 UTC