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

Joe English (
Thu, 27 Jul 95 13:32:34 EDT

Ian Graham <> wrote:

> My point is that, when converting legacy documents, there is often *no*
> primary meaning -- you only have the physical style. [...]
> Therefore this mechanism would require a new element (say FONT, a la
> Netscape) that is declared to have no semantic meaning and which would
> take an attribute to indicate physical style. But -- B, I and TT are
> already in common use, so those cannot be deprecated and replaced by


I'm not sure I follow you. They couldn't be *removed*,
but surely they could be *deprecated*, with the suggestion
that FONT be used instead, no?

> [...]
> This is a nontrivial debate, considering the types of things Netscape has
> tried to fiddle in with their FONT element. (I used this name for a
> reason!). So, the question becomes -- where does one stop with physical
> formatting elements?

My opinion: add exactly one more element, and then stop. Any new
formatting characteristics should be added as attributes on that
element. (This would have to be a new element because all of
the existing formatting elements are special-purpose.)

--Joe English