- From: Rob <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 16:48:02 -0500
- To: "Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor" <roconnor@wronski.math.uwaterloo.ca>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor wrote: > On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Rob wrote: > > > Ok, so what about a <FILENAME> or <URL> element? That would be > > *very* useful IMO, since many authors (myself included) are using > > <TT> or <I> at the moment. > [..] > 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. Under that logic, we can use <SPAN CLASS=Strong> etc. The advantage of <FILENAME> is that it tells the UA that the element contains a filename. <SPAN CLASS=Filename> just tells the UA that the element is marked up differently, and says nothing about the logical content. As it is, browsers don't support useful markup tags like <PERSON>, <ACRONYM>, <ABBREV>, and <DFN>. It would be nice if browsers at least supported them as 'null' elements (with no change in appearence) so that once can use them in situations like <PERSON CLASS=Contributor> etc. Rob --- Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl (wlkngowl@unix.asb.com) Se habla PGP. http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl
Received on Thursday, 10 July 1997 16:49:53 UTC