- From: Ian Hickson <exxieh@bath.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 14:01:53 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jukka Korpela <jkorpela@cc.hut.fi>, www-html@w3.org
I said: >> IMG is said to be deprecated in the text but not in the attribute index. >> Is this an error in the DTD & attribute index (please say that it is!) or an >> error in the text? Jukka answered: > The DTD is a different matter. Although one can roughly say that > the difference between HTML 4.0 Transitional and HTML 4.0 Strict > is that the latter does not contain deprecated features, this is > not how things are by definition. Ok. In that case, the error is more important. There are only two places where this is mentioned, and they disagree. > Well, normally indices and other appendices are less authoritative > than the text. So I think it is correct to say that those attributes > have been deprecated and the index of attributes is in error. On the > other hand, the index might reflect the true intentions better. > After all, being deprecated by a W3C recommendation can have little > meaning if W3C itself doesn't regard the issue as important. Can we PLEASE get some authoritative word on this from some members of the working group? My personal inclination would be to say that the attribute index is in error, for reasons I have now previously explained (these are presentational attributes, have no place in markup, can be done with CSS, and so on) -- Ian Hickson -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 Info: www.geekcode.com GIT/M/S d->-- s+: a--->? C++(+++)>$ U>*++++ P L+>+++++ E(+)>+++ W+++ N(+) o? K? w@ O- !M V- PS+ PE- Y+ PGP>+ t 5+++>++++ X- R+(+++) tv b++(+++) DI++ D++(---)>++++ G>+++ e(*)>+++++ h!()(--) !r y? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Received on Wednesday, 20 May 1998 03:05:18 UTC