Re: ACTION re: HTML 3: Too many tags!

Peter Flynn (
Thu, 27 Jul 95 07:22:41 EDT

> So far i have only heard agreement with respect to removing S, U, BIG,

While we're at it, ACRONYM can of course be replaced by a HREF, as in
<a href="">HTML</a>...:-)

> There's been some agreement to remove CODE
> and KBD and some dissent, but at least we are perhaps agreed that CODE,
> SAMP, and KBD together are redundant.

Yes, certainly there's way too much, and I'd include VAR in that too
(or is that already gone?).

> I still feel quite strongly about
> removing AU, and though not as emphatic i think removing INS and DEL can
> be justified. Other opinions and arguments?

The argument for adding INS and DEL was that legal and quasi-legal docs
need this ability (I have two applications waiting for a browser which
will do something with these tags). Whether these are the right tag names
to use is debatable, it may be that <EDIT ACTION="inserttion"> is a more
logical way to go.

I agree AU is too specific. We can't go the whole hog in TEI style and
allow for every conceivable (and some inconceivable) possibility, but
using PERSON with attributes seems to make sense. Me, I'd also like to
be able to encode artefacts and dates, but I don't think that would meet
approval. Although we could generalize even more and have <animal>,
<vegetable> and <mineral> with the relevant attributes...:-)