Re: Discussion

Tony Sanders <sanders@bsdi.com>

Mail folder: WWW Talk Jul-Oct 1993
Next message: Charles Henrich: "Restricted ports"
Previous message: rhb@hotsand.att.com: "Re: solution time for www/smtp hole"

Errors-To: sanders@bsdi.com
Errors-To: sanders@bsdi.com
Message-id: <9308130116.AA16508@austin.BSDI.COM>
To: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: Discussion 
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 13 Aug 93 12:37:53 +1200.
Errors-To: sanders@bsdi.com
Reply-To: sanders@bsdi.com
Organization: Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 20:16:34 -0500
From: Tony Sanders <sanders@bsdi.com>
Status: RO

Nat sez:
> http://www.vuw.ac.nz/non-local/gnat/converters.html
> is a controversial wee document about where I think WWW markup should
> be going.
    They both make efforts to encode the semantics of the document (for
    instance, ``this is a heading'', ``this is emphasised text'') rather
    than attempting to encode the presentation of the document (for
    instance, ``this is 9pt Roman'', ``this is centred, bold, text'').
    I argue that this is not a sensible direction to take.

But it is sensible, as soon as you specify *real* presentation it's not
portable.  However...

What you call "abstract presentation" is exactly what we are doing now.
Most of the things you propose are *already* in HTML+, (some even back
washed into HTML like <HR> and <BR>) so what is the problem?

Style Guides then go a BIG step further in allowing authors to
design layout.

--sanders