HTML+ Comments

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jul-Oct 1993
• Next message: Guido.van.Rossum@cwi.nl: "Re: forwarded message from Dirk Herr-Hoyman "
• Previous message: Daniel Miles Kehoe: "Adobe's PDF"

From: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Message-id: <9307170205.AA14961@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: HTML+ Comments
To: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 22:05:32 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 903       
Status: RO

(Forgive the non-elagance of these comments, its late :)

Howdy, just finished reading through the HTML+ RFC, and have a few comments
about it.

1) The specification allows </> to be a valid end tag for all tag's.  I feel
this is a mistake as it leades to great ambiguity when the document is bein
parsed automatically, or being read by a human.

2) It appears that both the <img> and <fig> tag should be rolled into one, as
both accomplishes esentially the same thing.

3) Physical styles should remain seperate tag's as they are currently
implemented in HTML.  (I.e <b> instead of <em b>).  The <em> tag should refer
exclusivly to logical role's, and not physical styles.

(How come I have this dreaded feeling im about to be flamed? :)

-Crh

    Charles Henrich     Michigan State University     henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu

    http://rs560.cl.msu.edu:82/afsmsu/user/h/e/henrich/public/web/henrich.html