- From: Clive Bruton <clive@typonaut.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 21:14:50 +0000
- To: <www-style@w3.org>
Todd Fahrner wrote at 09/02/98 7:44 pm >That'd certainly set the henhouse acackle, eh? I hardly blame you for not >doing this, but it does make me wonder whether HTML 4.0's "transitional" >period won't, in fact, become a destination, particularly in view of the >fact that XML is the first sort of Web-ready markup that key constituencies >are embracing as a worthy document source format. If XML is source, then >HTML is output: display. Why bother trying to preserve structure and >semantics in a display format? All you need is DIVs, SPANs, tables, and >forms. And support for "atomist" CSS - nothing too relative or >inheritance-intensive, and preferably inline. And DHTML. Right? If you >ditch all those troublesome structural/semantic tags, you can get passable >results with CSS today in the 4.0 browsers. The transition may be nearing >conclusion. > >These are rhetorical questions and assertions, but I suspect they're not >too far off the mark in many minds. While W3C promotes CSS for the greater >glory of HTML as a portable (smart) source format, leading implementors >seem interested only in those bits that will make HTML more tractable as a >"WYSIWYG" display format, limited to today's typical browsing paradigm >(maximize and scroll) and possibly also today's typical printers (US >letter, A4) Ahem, I'd have to agree with some (most) of Todd's rhetoric, for the most part I'm interested in getting the "display/delivery" right for a specific group of browsers. The structure matters a lot less since it exists in its source form, often quite distinctly. Perhaps an example of this is; recently we had some problems with certain characters displaying in some browsers and not other, the "×" was one, there was nothing wrong with our source to include "×" but at least some browsers wouldn't view it correctly. Therefore rather than adhere to the "correct" structure, we simply inserted "x". Problem solved. Similarly with the problem I am facing with { text-transform: uppercase } I'll find a work around to fix the source (in this case a database), rather than rely on browser implementation. -- Clive
Received on Monday, 9 February 1998 16:18:39 UTC