Re: Worthless crap in 3.0? (was Re: HTML4.0 draft: comments...)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 07:50 PM 10/09/97 -0500, Rob wrote:
>On 10 Sep 97, MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com> wrote:
>
>> I completely disagree.  Personally I think the 3.0 proposal was bloated
>> with more worthless crap that 3.2 or 4.0.  There were a few useful 
items
>> I miss - like BANNER - but few.  I don't think the MATH support in 3.0
>> was well thought out either and I'm glad it was dropped.  If the claims
>
>I don't think it was worthless crap at all (things like ABBREV, 
>PERSON, AU) just not well thought out.

Can you give some examples of HTML 3.0 elements or attributes that were 
"not well thought out"?  I believe INPUT TYPE=scribble was mentioned as 
being a bit overboard, but other than that the only problems I can see are 
some of the presentational features (like TAB and UL SRC) that are better 
left to style sheets.  Footnotes [1], captions [2], credits [3], notes 
[4], and range inputs [5] are all HTML 3.0 features that would be very 
useful to have today.  Structurally, HTML 3.0 had a lot of good ideas that 
didn't deserve to die.

[1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/footnotes.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/captions.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/credits.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/notes.html
[5] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/input.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQB1AwUBNBdSTg/JhtXygIx1AQGGYgMAun6WjTKB70i3F/Mwaf5SyZffgLCmrGfD
iZ612nTBmfO6FGd552Dx+XC7xVjdrtDo6jBBKD/qhHRrWBJKwm9Eo/w+H119+FNQ
aS8GEdpBDyTvekAqwMp66+fJSyIqV/zY
=R+pW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Liam Quinn
===============  http://www.htmlhelp.com/%7Eliam/  ===============
Web Design Group            Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
http://www.htmlhelp.com/    http://enhanced-designs.com/
======  PGP Key at http://www.htmlhelp.com/%7Eliam/pgp.html  =====

Received on Wednesday, 10 September 1997 22:09:54 UTC