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

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.

"The word to 'kill' ain't dirty    | Robert Rothenburg
 I used it in the last line        |
 but use the short word for lovin' |
 and Dad you wind up doin' time."  | PGP'd mail welcome (ID 0x5D3F2E99)

Received on Thursday, 11 September 1997 02:25:25 UTC