Re: Re STRONG, B, I, and U

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr-Jun 1993 Archives
• Next message: Jay Weber: "HTTP ACCEPT field and MIME types"
• Previous message: Bill Janssen: "Re: Keeping HTML Simple & Format negotiation between Browser & Server"
• In-reply-to: Dave_Raggett: "Re STRONG, B, I, and U"
• References: Dave_Raggett: "Re STRONG, B, I, and U"

Message-id: <og2uWusB0KGW8_JVJL@holmes.parc.xerox.com>
Date: 	Tue, 1 Jun 1993 12:06:34 PDT
Sender: Bill Janssen <janssen@parc.xerox.com>
From: Bill Janssen <janssen@parc.xerox.com>
To: janssen@parc.xerox.com, Dave_Raggett <dsr@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Re STRONG, B, I, and U
Cc: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
In-reply-to: <9306011428.AA10286@manuel.hpl.hp.com>
References: <9306011428.AA10286@manuel.hpl.hp.com>

Excerpts from ext.WorldWideWeb: 1-Jun-93 Re STRONG, B, I, and U
Dave_Raggett@hplb.hpl.hp (1477)

> I think this is perhaps a bit extreme, and in practice most people would
> prefer some preservation of italic emphasis etc.  (an empirical question)

I agree.  My only point is that the markup format which preserves such
italic emphasis should not be HTML, it should be something else, perhaps
Adobe Acrobat (or whatever they've renamed it to).

> Perhaps we ought to use <EMPH> for all inline emphasis! This gets around
> the problem in dealing with every growing categories for different needs.
> You then would see elements like:

>         <EMPH tag="author">H. G. Wells</EMPH>

> The Web could then have an evolving set of well known categories.
> Unrecognised categories would simply be ignored by the browser. Users
> would also be able to change how the browser renders each category.

I think I see a smiley here, but it's not such a silly idea.  I've been
working on something similar, a procedural markup scheme in which the
reason for the markup occurs along with the markup.

Bill