Re: Fate of <P> [Was: Toward Closure on HTML]
"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@simplon.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 21:53:18 --100
Message-id: <9404071249.aa07118@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: fielding@simplon.ICS.UCI.EDU
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@simplon.ICS.UCI.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Fate of <P> [Was: Toward Closure on HTML]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1309
Dan Connolly writes:
>
> So write
> <PP>Here's my para<p></pp>
>
> and it'll work everywhere. When <pp> is well established, just
> s/<p>//g and be done with it. I guarantee that's a lot easier and
> more reliable than the script that changes <p> from a separator
> to a container.
Yes, but isn't this requiring some serious dog-wagging? One of the major
reasons for enabling the parsing of documents is to make it easier for
authors editing in the raw to produce good HTML (those using pre-structured
editors would not need an external parser). A <PP> container would make
it substantially harder to read and produce raw HTML and thus would defeat
its own purpose.
I would much rather enforce the <HEAD> and <BODY> containers than add
the <PP> element, even though I agree that it would be extremely difficult
to do so. The <HEAD> and <BODY> containers will become a necessity in
the future for reasons beyond paragraph parsing. Why do we keep putting
this off? Is there some expectation that, the longer we wait, changing
this policy will become easier? I say do it now and get it over with.
Cheers,
...Roy Fielding ICS Grad Student, University of California, Irvine USA
(fielding@ics.uci.edu)
<A HREF="http://www.ics.uci.edu/dir/grad/Software/fielding">About Roy</A>