Whitespace and <size> tags

Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu>
From: Charles Henrich <henrich@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Message-id: <9401131456.AA19546@crh.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Whitespace and <size> tags
To: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 1994 09:56:58 -0500 (EST)
In-reply-to: <9401130527.AB07952@dxmint.cern.ch> from "Rich Wiggins" at Jan 13, 94 00:20:20 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL21]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1421      
> So don't look at a poster on the wall as what folks would like to
> transmit.  Look at the last issue of Byte or Wired, and add videos.
> I understand the standard arguments about markup being to denote
> semantics not precise presentation, but there's a revolution of
> rising expectations here.

Its funny how an issue about implied whitespace can spiral out of control :)
The whole suggestion to add a <text size> tag was just to allow getting the
same effect as <h?> tags witout the whitespace.  For those who are screaming
"but that doesnt belong!  Next we'll have font families" your wrong.  First let
me say that we *already* have multiple font sizes, in use on virtually every
page out there.  It just happens that the use of the font sizes is very
hindered by the implied whitespace.  And the reason font families would not
succeed is because most folks do not have 250 different font sets, nor the disk
space to house them.  When most folks go through all the effort of putting up a
web, they want people to be able to read what they've done!  By using obscure
fonts their information wouldnt be available to the rest of the world.  Course
we could always ship browsers with a standard set of fonts... (running for
cover! :)   [Im kidding!  Multifonts are not good IMHO!]


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