Re: Future version of HTML!?

On Sat, 23 Oct 1999, Keith Bowes wrote:

>2.  Add commonly used tags and attributes that have no  
>standard/CSS equivalents (among the primary candidates is  
><BGSOUND>).

You mean
<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/aural.html#propdef-play-during>?

>3.  Allow "made-up" attributes, creating a more powerful DOM  
>(this is already allowed in Internet Explorer).
>4.  Stop downplaying HTML features just because they're  
>presentational.  Modern HTML should break the barriers of  
>prior versions and allow presentational features, especially  
>those of hypertext (eg, FRAMES, INLINE FRAMES, and BACKGROUND  

I was thinking along the same lines a long time ago, before I sat down to
read the specs in detail. Then, I realized that if you do this, HTML will
become a very, very complex and frustrating thing. Once you've gotten to
know CSS and HTML, writing code by hand, you realize how simple it is, and
how easy it would be to get things done (hadn't it been for those #@%$
(sorry) implementations). 

>SOUND) and those that can't be replaced by stylesheets and  
>newer constructs (especially FRAMES).

Frames is something rather problematic. Indeed, it is possible to use
frames in a way that is user friendly, but in most cases today, frames are
not used for the good of the user. I feel it is a bad solution to a real
problem. Anyway, if you read the discussion on "Why XSL?", you'll see that
the problem is being addressed at a different, but much better level,
<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xsl/#AEN70>

Best,

Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
Graduate astronomy-student                    Problems worthy of attack
University of Oslo, Norway            Prove their worth by hitting back
E-mail: kjetikj@astro.uio.no                                - Piet Hein
Homepage <URL:http://www.astro.uio.no/~kjetikj/>
Webmaster@skepsis.no

Received on Saturday, 23 October 1999 04:54:51 UTC