- From: Lucille Arneson <lda@slip.net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:42:59 -0800
- To: Walter Ian Kaye <walter@natural-innovations.com>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Right on, Walter. Lucille *** >At 2:09p -0800 02/24/99, Daniel Austin wrote with bad line breaks: >>Speaking for myself, not for CNET or the HTML Working Group: >> >> While I sympathize with those who would like HTML to use upper case >>tags, >>this is unlikely to change. XML is case sensitive, and therefore the case of >>element names >>must be specified in one way alone. Given this, lower case was chosen. > ><QUESTION ID=1> >But WHY was lower case chosen over upper case? ></QUESTION> > ><QUESTION ID=2> >And why were the thousands(?) of web developers around the world never >consulted about this, or given the chance to vote? ></QUESTION> > ><PROBLEM> >We're the ones who have to use it, so to not consult us about this is >extremely rude, uncaring, and mean. ></PROBLEM> > ><OBSERVATION> >I didn't know HTML had become a dictatorship, but obviously it has. ><OBSERVATION> > > >-Walter > who will continue to use upper-case HTML tags, XML be damned. > > > >
Received on Thursday, 25 February 1999 13:43:13 UTC