Re: HTML+ Comments
marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93 14:37:43 -0500
From: marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen)
Message-id: <9307191937.AA16965@wintermute.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
To: Dave_Raggett <dsr@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu, www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: HTML+ Comments
In-reply-to: <9307191000.AA01252@manuel.hpl.hp.com>
References: <9307191000.AA01252@manuel.hpl.hp.com>
X-Md4-Signature: 2f9fb32418e32790470d317d9db672e3
Status: RO
Dave_Raggett writes:
> SGML tags act like brackets and must be properly nested. There is therefore
> no syntactic ambiguity. However, in the real world, people do make typos and
> you are right in suggesting that this abbreviation would make it harder for
> browsers (and people) to recover from errors.
>
> Before I remove this feature, does anyone else feel the same way?
I'm definitely in favor of </>; I think it's very clean and quite
nice, and as its meaning is completely deterministic there's no reason
not to have it.
> > 2) It appears that both the <img> and <fig> tag should be rolled into one,
> > as both accomplishes esentially the same thing.
>
> I have included IMG for two reasons.
>
> a) for simple captionless graphics, which are positioned
> as part of the current text line.
>
> b) for backwards compatibility with HTML (X Mosaic and Cello)
It's fine with the Mosaic folks if IMG goes or stays (we're not
emotionally attached to it :-).
Marc