RE: "Presentational" vs. "Legacy"

Jonny Axelsson wrote:

> (*) I and B is imperfect markup, but having it is better than not having it.
>     It does have a use.

No one is currently suggesting here eliminating I and B.  They are currently
proposed -- for XHTML 1.1 modularization -- to be put in the "Presentation
Module".  See:

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-modularization/xhtml_modules.html#s_presentationmodul
e

(you may have to copy and paste that URL, I think the list software will break
it up).

> (*) If we imagined that I and B didn't exist, EM might have been created,
>     STRONG wouldn't. STRONG is there because B is there (I said with perfect
>     telepathic sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Dan Conolly is the
>     inventor of STRONG. In which case this wasn't the best of his creations).

Different strokes, I guess.  Whoever originated it aside, I think STRONG is a
good idea ... and does not belong in a Presentation Module.

> (-)Move CODE, VAR, KBD and SAMP into a separate module.
>    While [this] can be considered polite conversation
>    under the barrage of device upload,

:)

>    ... These four attributes are admirably
>    clear *for a programmer*, they are also clearly a separate module.

I agree.  I'm actually surprised it wasn't made one in the current draft.

>    For fairness and regularity, it probably should be an optional module.

So should, IMO, the Presentation module.

But rather than getting into the merits of I and B vs. EM and STRONG, or whether
EM EM should replace STRONG, and so on, my original query -- somewhat lost in
the haze -- was:

Why not combine Legacy and Presentation into one module?  The stuff in Legacy is
*all* presentational anyway.  If you want to do it the new way, use stylesheets.
If you want to do it the old way, include the Presentation Module.  Simple.

Having two kinds of presentational markup is schizophrenia.


/Jelks

Received on Tuesday, 4 April 2000 17:59:31 UTC