- From: Brent Eades <beades@ottawa.net>
- Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 10:53:29 +0000
- To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, www-html@w3.org
On 17 Aug 96 , Daniel W. Connolly wrote: > I didn't see any debate among "those most expert..." Note that > everyone who cited a source agreed on the syntax and semantics of > <p> and </p>. > > On the contrary: The <p> debate is so old that lots of people -- > even those who haven't read the relavent specs and aren't willing to > consult and cite them -- are willing to give their two cents. OK, all fair enough... but I guess my original point still stands, more or less: something is amiss with a language when reasonably sophisticated users of it can still, after years, get hung up on a trivial point of its useage. Using <p> as an example, why do the specs simply not state that <p>foo</p> is the *only* correct way to contain text not otherwise marked up... or <p>alone between blocks of text is the only way... but not both? Just seems to me that if proficient-but-average users like myself are constantly perplexed by (non?) issues like this, then something isn't working. --------------------------------------- Brent Eades, Box 1759, Almonte, Ontario http://www.worldlink.ca/almonte/brent beades@ottawa.net | almonte@worldlink.ca Member: Web Consultants Association | Contributor: CGI-L FAQ
Received on Sunday, 18 August 1996 10:55:34 UTC