- From: Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor <roconnor@wronski.math.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 11:15:29 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Scott Matthewman <scottm@danielson.co.uk>
- cc: www-html@w3.org
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Scott Matthewman wrote:
> > To support <FILENAME> new browsers will have to be made. To support CSS,
> > nw browers have to be made. It would be pointless to create a <FILENAME>
> > element because if browers supported this, then they would also support
> > <SPAN CLASS=Filename>, which is a better solution.
>
> To support HTML 4.0 new browsers will have to be made.
> Let's all go home now ;-)
>
> A FILENAME element fits the model in that it's contextual; I guess it has
> extra subtleties compared to, say, SAMP. Sounds OK to me...
If we support FILENAME, then what? There are millions of possible
contextual mark up. As I understand this is the whole reason why GML was
abandoned for SGML. The solution to this problem is to use XML. But HTML
4.0 isn't XML. I could live with FILENAME added, but why that one and not
others? We have to draw the line somewhere. Since we have a general CSS
solution, I think the fewer the better.
--
Russell O'Connor | roconnor@uwaterloo.ca
<http://www.undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca/%7Eroconnor/>
"And truth irreversibly destroys the meaning of its own message"
-- Anindita Dutta, "The Paradox of Truth, the Truth of Entropy"
Received on Thursday, 10 July 1997 11:22:08 UTC