- From: Rob <wlkngowl@unix.asb.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 02:22:47 -0500
- To: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>, www-html@w3.org
On 10 Sep 97, Liam Quinn wrote: > >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 As in the above-mentioned: ABBREV, ACRONYM, PERSON, AU and a couple of other 'meta' or informational elements are nice ideas but poorly thought out. A set of dictionary-elements that can point out proper names or special words for indexers and speech synthesizers and possibly add (pop-up?) definitions or elaborations is needed. > [..] > 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. I agree with most of the above. Rob ----- "The word to 'kill' ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg wlkngowl@unix.asb.com I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl but use the short word for lovin' | http://www.wusb.org/mutant and Dad you wind up doin' time." | PGP'd mail welcome (ID 0x5D3F2E99)
Received on Thursday, 11 September 1997 02:25:25 UTC