- From: Abigail <abigail@ny.fnx.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 01:48:14 -0500 (EST)
- To: www-html@www10.w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- You, Peter Flynn, wrote: ++ ++ IM-just-as-HO, that's reason enough to advocate it. If people stop using ++ FRAMEs and BANNERs and SPACERs and all of those dreaful little hacks until ++ someone gets a legit way to implement them in a right way then we will get ++ ++ That's exactly what HTML Pro does. Hmm, I read "implement them in a right way" as "implementing in a user agent", but HTML Pro is a DTD, combining the various DTDs. I don't want to criticize your work, but so what? Even if HTML Pro puts FRAME, BANNER and SPACER nicely in a DTD, does that suddenly mean it is now "right" to use them? There are various objections against the use of FRAME, BANNER and SPACER, and I don't see why they would suddely go away because they appear in HTML Pro. More in general, I wonder, what is the point of HTML Pro? Fine, it sums all proposed and implemented elements, but so what? What does it gain me to have a document which validates according to HTML Pro? AFAIK, there isn't a browser which can deal with all that is "allowed" by HTML Pro. ++ Add my name to that list of people wanting CLASS and ID in HTML 3.2 (there ++ IS one being made, ISN'T there? :-)) Why would one like to have CLASS and ID in HTML 3.2? HTML 3.2 is supposed to be "describe current practise". Adding CLASS and ID doesn't suddenly make browsers understand CLASS and ID. I rather have browsers understand CLASS and ID than having a descritive DTD that lists them, while browsers don't. Abigail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMstaLEYClTI4B30xAQFDAQP/SIpTfZp44yaabEp5twTnBBQWZElod50B 4OKgBZ6dzw9eA4dKkf/HzxPWZaqq+zuNDre1A3qxyU3WyQvDMLV111opqTEkzOnN tRfw8N6Qutsx0/G2L93erulH4B1C7YCIknfcN0ECo8/as+qNrelprOWY+CQ2CNcQ 4S+5CDzhEiE= =MOHn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Thursday, 2 January 1997 01:47:12 UTC