Re: RE dtd2.htmlTim Berners-Lee <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 93 18:14:22 +0100
From: Tim Berners-Lee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Dave_Raggett <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: RE dtd2.html
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
> > + I am not sure that STRONG, B, I, and U are desirable as
> > elements. These formatting characteristics ought to
> > get applied to elements on the basis of their meaning.
> > But that's a rather SGML point of view; you may wish
> > to allow this slop room for WWW.
> I don't like them either. They are present in HTML to support
> importing (scanned) documents for which a filter has no way of
> the original meaning.
HTML and HTML have a status in between a formatting language and a
spacific application. As a delivery language for very wide
use, the tags must be generic thimselves. STRONG emphasis
or EMphasis is not a formatting instruction, it is semantic.
But it is not as semantic as PROHIBITION or
LOCSHELFNUMBER or MICASHEETTHICKNESS.
HTML+ must like HTML refrain from falling into eiter trap,
of being too related to markup, or of being too related
to a specific application. FLYLEAF sounds very booklike
to me. Perhaps we should ask ourselves what the logical
significance (rather than paper representation) of a flyleaf
is. Normally it is a summary, much like a WAIS source file's
"description:". It is free, and provided by the publisher
to entice the reader in. If we make it less booklike
then we can use it for say databases and cyberspace
manicure parlours as well as books. If you can can see how
to describe something without the book analogy, then you will
have something more flexible for the future. As who knows
what ORA will be publishig in a few years' time? :-)