Re: <NEWHTML>???

Nir:

> 
> >As for new features of HTML, complexity shouldn't run that high
> >and new elements are designed to be backward 
> >compatible. The HTML4.0 strict model is a super-HTML2.0 that 
> >kicks out the mess done by adding zillions of ill defined elements. 

Alex:

> Yes, indeed, the new HTML models must, by definition, be backward
> compatible. However, implementing some elements as such is becoming
> an increasing problem. For example, to create a site based on cascading
> style sheets that still looks normal on older browsers requires a lot
> of effort -- more than it should, in my opinion. 

Nir again: 

Sites should be based on HTML. CSS are very backward compatible.

Write your pages like that:

1. round one: (required) write in  HTML4.0 strict. 
     (Then it looks fine on HTML 2.0+TABLES  browsers and actually 
      looks like HTML2.0 on HTML4.0 browsers)
2. round two: (optional) add stylesheets. (no change in backward compatibility)
3. round 3: (optional) add deprecated stuff to improve rendering in HTML 3.2 
      browsers (no problem with HTML 2.0 here)
4. Publish the pages!

If you did in 3 only things that are done by the style sheet of 2, 
your work is also future compatible when the deprecated stuff become 
obsolete (50 years from now, given the widespeard usage of presentational
markup).

So what was the problem?

Alex:
                                                                    
> 
> Yes, some minor equivalents have been created -- but if for each major
> new tag you have to create a new <NO...> tag, an unnecessarily large
> number of tags will be created. NOSCRIPT, NOFRAME, and NOLAYER exist
> already [not sure on the standard re. NOLAYER, but still] -- and each
> time a new feature is introduced, another replacement will need to be
> made. Introducing a universal "alternate content for new elements" tag
> should save a lot of redundancy.

Nir again:

NOLAYER and LAYER are not HTML. 
Use the NONETSCAPE element, and save lots of trouble :-)

New non-HTML/non-XML features don't need new elements. OBJECT is generic.
Its content gives the backward compatibility. (Possibly with nested OBJECTs)

The NEWHTML proposal goes with the XML generic inclusion, this is 
"Under construction" in the respective working group. 
(Please, I am not on it!)


Alex is:

> --
> Alex Fabrikant
> afabrikant@ausd.k12.ca.us
> 
> 

and Nir is:

Nir Dagan.
dagan@upf.es
http://www.econ.upf.es/%7Edagan/

Best regards.
Nir.

Received on Friday, 6 March 1998 07:31:22 UTC