I agree completely and shoulder all the blame. If you are familiar
with the history of <BLINK> you know that I didn't intend it as
a serious tag, but as soon as it got out, it was being used all over
the place and our users didn't want us to take it out. If the
new standard had <EM style=blink> or something similar users would
start using that and stop using <BLINK>.
>
> >Because it is in wide use it should be seriously considered for it's
> >merit. While considering it's merit you should try to understand the
> >point of view and intensions of the people using it. It is definatly
> >a style attribute, but does it belong in HTML or in a style sheet.
> >Opinions vary...
>
> They vary upon whether you think your *information* is valuable, and
> long-lived, or whether it's just a throw away. Divorcing structure
> from presentation gives you the best of both worlds, at the cost of
> some complexity.
>
> Ask yourself this question next time: would I give a database a field
> with this name, and semantics? In the answer is negative, do *not* add
> it to your list of extended tags. Another easy way is to see if the
> word is a noun.
HTML is alot more than a database language. It is the primary presentation
language for the web. It therefore needs to contain at least some formatting
information. Combining structure and presentation isn't always bad,
especially when your primary purpose is presentation.
:lou
--
Lou Montulli http://www.mcom.com/people/montulli/
Netscape Communications Corp.