- From: Arnoud <galactus@stack.urc.tue.nl>
- Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 20:07:47 +0200
- To: www-html@w3.org
In article <321198F1.59E2B600@uk.fnx.com>, Abigail <abigail@uk.fnx.com> wrote: > Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote: > > One reason is that every browser would have to support every tag we > > can think of. With classes, you can ignore them safely, or only > > rely on them to look up the rendering information in the style sheet. > > This strikes me as a bit absurd. If we have thingy X, and X is expressed > in elements, then it will be a problem if some browsers don't handle > those elements, but if X is expressed using a style sheet, then it > suddenly can be ignored safely? Like, the <IMG> tag is bad because Sorry, I was a bit unclear there. If you define tags for everything, you have to rewrite the standard every time someone comes up with a new one. With CLASS, you can invent your own stuff without ending up with an invalid document. Also, CLASS requires the use of an existing tag. This means that a browser which does not understand the CLASS in question will just use the default value of the tag. <EM CLASS=legal.warning> degrades a lot better than <LEGAL-WARNING>, for example. Galactus -- To find out more about PGP, send mail with HELP PGP in the SUBJECT line to me. E-mail: galactus@stack.urc.tue.nl - Please PGP encrypt your mail if you can. Finger galactus@turtle.stack.urc.tue.nl for public key (key ID 0x416A1A35). Anonymity and privacy site: <http://www.stack.urc.tue.nl/~galactus/remailers/>
Received on Wednesday, 14 August 1996 15:05:41 UTC