- From: Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 08:05:13 -0600
- To: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
- CC: www-html@www10.w3.org
| From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> | | Creeping presentationism (B, FONT, etc.) have made it near impossible to | argue that "HTML [should] remain free of tags that apply only to | presentation." The beginning and end of any such discussion will be: "If | presentation markup is so bad, why does HTML 3.2 do it?" Which reduces | us to shouting down individual proposals rather than making an argument | based on design, architecture and direction. --- It's worth noting that there's nothing wrong with presentation tags *as long as they are in addition to structural tags*. The problem is that naive authors often use the presentation tags instead of structural tags, leading to loss of information. Presentation information, whether in the tagging or in stylesheets, is also important to the success of the medium and the documents. Once stylesheets are well established and all the introductory books explain how to use them, I think a lot of the fervor for pure presentation tags will change to requests for new stylesheet capabilities, at least for some things. Indent, for instance, is an obvious stylesheet issue. Marking where page breaks occur in a printed version is more likely to be a tagging issue, but indicating whether every H2 should start a new page is more likely a stylesheet issue. A few months after Netscape has CSS support the dialog should be significantly different... scott -- scott preece motorola/css urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801 phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550 internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Received on Thursday, 16 January 1997 09:06:20 UTC