Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)

>I'm all for structural markup.  But I'd love to see presentation ATTRIBUTES
>on them directly.

Fair enough, and better than presentational tags.  Personnaly, I'm opposed
to them because I'd rather split presentation from characterization and I
consider the role of attributes to be the latter.

>I have never, practially, had to do this on a web.  I know SOME people do,
>fine.  And when I do need to change some tags globally - I have a perl
>script that will tree the site and do it in seconds.

Also fair enough.  If you have control over all of the involved content and
dictate appropriate style rules, there is probably less need for the use of
style sheets to abstract away presentational issues.  But we usually don't
have that level of control for all authors, readers, and automated document
processors.

>Can I borrow you managers?  Mine seem to like to make people do things the
>hard way. ;-)

Okay, so do most of them.  Just tell them you'll be able to do twice as
much work if you use styles.  ;-)

>I'm in control of what tags get used here, at least that much is in my
>control.  And, AFAIK, the entire site is Lynx friendly and we won an award
>for being Speech Friendly for the blind.  You CAN do presentational things
>and still degrade gracefully - if you know what you are doing.

I agree with that, too.  I'm preaching to the converted to argue with you
about compatibility.  If you're controling usage conventions for all tags,
and thoroughly editing your content to make sure that the conventions are
followed, then you've won half the battle against presentational markup.
It also means that you can add style information to the pages after the
marketing types are done authoring them.  I don't see how it would take
any more effort then checking that usage conventions.

Chuck

--
Chuck D'Antonio
Programmer & Network Support Specialist
FAS Administrative Computing
Harvard University

Received on Friday, 17 January 1997 14:16:03 UTC