[alanb@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Alan Braverman): Re: That old <p> tag again ]

"Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
Message-id: <9406101615.AA07833@ulua.hal.com>
To: html-ig@oclc.org
Subject: [alanb@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Alan Braverman): Re: That old <p> tag again ]
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 11:15:53 -0500
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
Content-Length: 1339

------- Forwarded Message

Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 13:20:26 CDT
From: alanb@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Alan Braverman)
Message-Id: <9406091820.AA26047@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
Subject: Re: That old <p> tag again 
In-Reply-To: <9406091815.AA07229@ulua.hal.com>
References: <9406091808.AA25468@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>

Daniel W. Connolly writes:
> In message <9406091808.AA25468@void.ncsa.uiuc.edu>, Alan Braverman writes:
> >
> >If NCSA went with the <PP> tag, would you support it, or have you given in
> >completely?
> I still think its a good idea in prinicipal, but you're talking about
> MAJOR headaches for document providers, I'd expect. It's a question of
> how we make the transition.
> I'm willing to raise the issue again. Do I have your permission to
> quote you to www-html etc., or would you like to send out the message?

Well, don't quote any of my haphazzard e-mail, but you have the support of
the NCSA developers.  No one here likes the idea of redefining the <P> tag,
we would rather go with a new tag, as you suggested to www-talk (either
<PP> or <PARA>).  You can quote that if you want to :-)


- --
Alan Braverman
Software Development Group
National Center for Supercomputing Applications

------- End of Forwarded Message