Re: ISO and HTML

On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Dave Carter wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Apr 1997, Jukka Korpela wrote:

> > Some of the differences are irrelevant or something which
> > might well be adopted as clarifications to HTML 3.2 (simply
> > by an announcement from W3C, for example, or by changing
> > the 3.2 spec). But some of them are really strange like
> > making CENTER element illegal, requiring that CENTRE be
> > a recognized alternative spelling to CENTER (as an attribute
> > value), and removing DIR and MENU since are "simply
> > sugared syntax for the <UL> element" (i.e. because implementors
> > have been lazy, implementing them using the same code as for UL).
> 
> What is strange about any of that??? It has been clear for a long
> time that CENTRE should be an attribute to a block level element
> and that <CENTER> was only included in 3.2 to appease Netscape.

Actually, it should be specified by a stylesheet and not included in HTML
at all, being a purely presentationl issue.

> CENTRE is the correct spelling where I come from, why should I be
> penalised for using it. This is an advantage of having a proper
> international body define standards, not an ad-hoc one from one
> particular country that thinks it knows it all. 

So now we are going to introduce variants for *each* of the more than 200
languages on the planet for every tag and attribute? I get dibs on the 2
byte languages....I love it: American style political correctness comes to
the ISO standards process. 

CENTRE falls under the same argument as your argument against CENTER tags:
It is nothing except appeasement to some significant political segment and
is otherwise completely unneeded as being redundant.

-- 
Benjamin "I'm not non-compliant: I'm otherly standards enabled" Franz

Received on Wednesday, 2 April 1997 07:56:25 UTC