Re: New Highlighting.html (Gary Adams - Sun Microsystems Labs BOS)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 16:12:16 EDT
Message-id: <9406292011.AA12739@zeppo.East.Sun.COM>
Precedence: bulk
From: (Gary Adams - Sun Microsystems Labs BOS)
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: New Highlighting.html
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Implementation Group (Private)

> From  Wed Jun 29 15:49:41 1994
> For HTML 2.0, I have to agree with Dan that <NEW> is 
> not in practice today and cannot, therefore, be
> included in the spec.

Tim's idea to include PROPOSED items in the 2.0 spec walks a very fine line.
On the positive side it does provide a place holder for the items that are
well known or understood to be important to the language, but they do open up
the spec to some confusion to the individuals that did not read the
disclaimers clearly enough to realize that PROPOSED elements are not
currently practiced uniformly and more importantly are subject to change in
future versions of the spec. I don't believe that NEW is either well known
or understood at this time.

> However, for 3.0 and beyond, I think that there
> should be a mechanism for denoting changes
> to a document, perhaps even with effectivity dates
> attached so that a clever browser or server could 
> present a document
> 	- as it is today
> 	- as it was on a specified date
> 	- with all additions and deletions present.

After several revisions of a document the NEW tags will be lost in the noise,
if there isn't a good handle on attributing changes to particular individuals
at particular points in time. In truly collaborative editting situations it
is important to provide tools for resolving conflicts that arise.

All of the functionality that is needed to support versioning and annotations
is well beyond the scope of the HTML 2.X. 

> I don't think that <STRIKE> is the appropriate tag
> to use to denote the "delete" semantic, as I beleive
> that <STRIKE> is a typographic effect rather than
> anything else.  While it is true that <STRIKE> could
> be associated with "delete", <STRIKE> could also be
> associated with other semantics.

I agree that the semantics of STRIKE should be left out of the 2.0 spec.

> Murray
> > 
> > Regarding New:  Most typeset documents that I've seen use Bold as New. Rather
> > than adding another element, is it possible to define New as another name for
> > some predefined  format?