RE: Non-browser uses of HTML

On Thu, 09 May 96 13:53:00 PDT, Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com> wrote:
> Lee Daniel Crocker writes in <199605081752.KAA28983@web1.calweb.com>:
> >I am considering recommending to my company that we stand-
> >ardize on HTML for all of our internal documents for the
> >same reason.  [...] I
> >may have to revisit this decision if HTML continues down
> >the visual-based road.
> 
> But it isn't a visual-based road.  The endgoal is to allow visual users 
> their visual niceties via stylesheets and OBJECT, while preserving 
> structured data for those of us who need and use it (the infrastructure 
> people).

Well, given that CENTER and FONT made it into 3.2 but not CLASS, it
sure does look like a visual-based road. However, it has already been
mentioned that CLASS may make it into the next draft. If CLASS will
indeed be in there and if there will be a strict version without
FONT and CENTER, I would be much happier. I would be even happier if
it included the full tables draft as well as the I18N draft (how could
an HTML 3.2 not include 2.1 and 2.2?) and possibly the OBJECT draft
(I know these aren't implemented by any browser yet, but how can you
claim leadership if you don't lead?). It would be nice if many other
things from the expired HTML 3.0 draft could be found such as the ID
attribute and an equivalent to <UL PLAIN> (maybe <UL TYPE=EMPTY>?)

> Eventually (which may be a few years down the road), I expect that the 
> majority of Web pages will "look nice" via stylesheets and OBJECT, but will 
> have a reasonable structure because that is what is needed for those pages 
> to be accurately indexed and searched.

Then the HTML drafts should reflect that goal.

Marcus
--
Marcus E. Hennecke
marcush@crc.ricoh.com        http://www.crc.ricoh.com/~marcush/

Received on Thursday, 9 May 1996 15:27:27 UTC