- From: Steven Champeon <schampeo@hesketh.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 09:29:46 -0400
- To: scottm@danielson.co.uk (Scott Matthewman), <IDSamson@beauty.hsrc.ac.za>, <www-html@w3.org>
At 02:09 PM 7/9/97 +0100, Scott Matthewman graced us with: > I can't think of a valid enough reason why TT shouldn't be deprecated, > since it's a presentational rather than content-based tag. > > Similarly, I think B and I should be deprecated. STRONG and EM are > preferable. Why would anyone in their right mind *want* to type <STRONG> when they can type <B>? I'm restricting my question to the obvious fact of one being shorter than the other. Never mind all the "markup vs. presentation" arguments - I know them, and agree. But my point is that the presentational markup *elements* (eh, Paul?) are *shorter* than the pure structural markup elements. How about some new but shorter elements? <STRONG> -> <S> <EM> -> <E> This way those of us who code by hand don't have to type these longer versions. I know, I know, XML will save the world, but for now how about some realization of the effect that more abstract notions and their longer terms has on the sheer size of the files produced. To me, this is one of the flaws in HTML - the one which determined why people use one set of elements over the others. By making the presentational markup shorter and easier to type, it guaranteed that the other markup would not be used but as an exception. Steve -- Steven Champeon | What we do not understand http://www.hesketh.com/schampeo | we do not possess. http://www.jaundicedeye.com | - Goethe
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 1997 09:30:55 UTC