Whitespace | Fonts | HTML vs. page layout

R. Michael Van Dyk <vandyk@roses.rockwell.com>
Message-id: <9401131847.AA11747@slopok.roses.rockwell.com>
From: R. Michael Van Dyk <vandyk@roses.rockwell.com>
Subject: Whitespace | Fonts | HTML vs. page layout
To: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 94 10:50:24 PST
X-Hpvue$Revision: 1.8 $
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Message/rfc822
X-Vue-Mime-Level: 4
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Content-Length: 1310

Since anyone with an e-mail address seems to be voicing their 2-cents 
on this subject, who am I not to join the fray?

Consider this one vote for:

HTML, or some extension to HTML, or some OTHER THING allowed inside HTML,
which allows document authors to at least HINT AT, if not CONTROL some
aspects of page layout.

Strictly from my perspective (although not disregarding yours), I am happy
to suggest to the readers of my documents that:

	IF they want to get the full value out of my efforts to have
	   STYLE express some extra hints about CONTENT
	THEN they should use a browser that supports the above extensions.

I don't really mind at all if people want to use simpler browsers or
(E-macs on ANSI terminals; no flames please) to read my documents.  They
simply won't see the extra work that I did to help them understand my stuff.

I do mind if those people insist on divorcing the ability to use fancy 
bit-mapped capabilities in my primary browser (Mosaic) from the HTML which
is the basis for accessing webs of information.

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but this particular thread seems to be one
where people air their viewpoints; this is mine, and mine alone. 
<!include standard-employer-disclaimers>