18 messages in org.w3.www-styleRe: Re:When will CSS rule?
FromSent OnAttachments
Mike WexlerNov 18, 1996 2:15 pm 
Sarra MossoffNov 18, 1996 2:45 pm 
Kim McGalliardNov 18, 1996 3:03 pm 
Chris LilleyNov 18, 1996 3:17 pm 
Carl MorrisNov 18, 1996 7:13 pm 
Steve KnoblockNov 18, 1996 7:43 pm 
Carl MorrisNov 18, 1996 9:28 pm 
andi hindleNov 19, 1996 2:52 am 
Steve KnoblockNov 19, 1996 8:20 am 
Carl MorrisNov 19, 1996 4:24 pm 
Steve KnoblockNov 19, 1996 4:55 pm 
Carl MorrisNov 19, 1996 6:44 pm 
papr...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.caNov 20, 1996 4:09 am 
Steve KnoblockNov 20, 1996 7:07 am 
papr...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.caNov 20, 1996 8:43 am 
Dan DelaneyNov 20, 1996 9:13 am 
Carl MorrisNov 20, 1996 3:17 pm 
Gordon BlackstockNov 22, 1996 12:54 pm 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: Re:When will CSS rule?Actions...
From:papr...@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (papr@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca)
Date:Nov 20, 1996 4:09:24 am
List:org.w3.www-style

At 08:44 PM 11/19/96 -0600, Carl Morris wrote:

| Not proprietary. With CSS <div class=poem> = <poem>. Easy for a search | engine to do now.

The question after this is, with HTML CLASS attributes, is there still a need for real <POEM> tags?

Yes. POEM tags have extra benefits over <div class=poem>. * they are more compact to type and download. * they are easier to work with programmatically. Most SGML/HTML search engines/transformation tools/parsers/formatters/ whatever are "keyed" on element name. Doing work based on attributes tend to be harder. * you can use an SGML DTD to specify the valid contents of a poem, if you want to. * <poem> is easier to parse than <div class="poem">. * new elements may have new attributes like <poem author="Sidney">

Wouldn't it complicate things, requiring browsers to constantly update, for such tags?

Why? It is no harder to parse <POEM> than <DIV CLASS=POEM>. Neither requires a browser update. They just require a style sheet to describe how to display them.

I don't think what we call HTML should ever turn into SGML,

HTML could never turn into SGML. It wouldn't make sense. But the "standard language" of the Web could turn into SGML. This process is under way.

while it is "an application there of" it is meant to be simpler to use/parse/render than SGML.

HTML is not necessarily easier to use, parse OR render than a "simple" SGML. Note that ["simple" SGML] is now a World Wide Web Consortium standard.

However, by SGML I think all people mean is content validation...

That isn't at all true. You've missed the point of SGML altogether.

SGML is about allowing end users to take control of the data format of their documents. Documents are important, the knowledge inside of them is vital and hand-conversions from Netscape 2.0 HTML to Netscape 3.0 HTML are error-prone and expensive. Part of that process of "taking control" may be validation. But the most important part is just that you are allowed to invent your own tags instead of being at the mercy of browser vendors. Your document content is too important to trap in the braindead formats of the people at Netscape who don't know document structure from a hole in the ground.

it appears to me that all SGML does is define the rules for which content will be ... organized?

It can. But it doesn't have to.

But if everyone is able to define their own rules ... where will we be going? (I know, anarchy! Or is that a democracy? :) <RBEG>

Freedom, not anarchy. "Conformity" is reimposed through style sheets and document architectures.

Paul Prescod --- Boycott Shell Oil worldwide! http://www.web.apc.org/embargo/shell.htm

"Shell is here on trial and it is as well that it is represented by counsel said to be holding a watching brief."..."The ecological war that the Company has waged in the Delta will be called to question sooner than later." -Ken Saro-Wiwa to the tribunal that later executed him. http://www.gem.co.za/ELA/ken.html