Re: Sentence MarkUp
Ian S. Graham (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 27 Jul 95 10:32:43 EDT
> At 12:47 PM 7/26/95 -0600, Benjamin C. W. Sittler wrote:
> >I realize that CLASS is not just for stylesheets, but are we going to
> >build a library of CLASS names with suggested meanings (and some suggested
> >renderings)? If so, then I would use CLASS, but this hasn't been done so
> >far as I know...
> I think that it would be premature to standardize CLASSes until we see what
> people want to do with them.
> But Benjamin's concern is valid and common. Others are expressing it in
> various HTML forums. They want their CLASSed text to be visually
> differentiated ASAP. New browsers are coming out every month, but they are
> no closer to differentiating between CLASSes of text, because they are
> waiting for style sheets. Therefore people use HTML as presentation markup
> and say they will change to style sheets "when they come out." Designing and
> implementing a good style sheet language takes time, but people are impatient.
> I suggest we develop a transitional style sheet format while we work out the
> "real thing." We can call it "W3C Style Sheets version 0.5" or perhaps
> "W3C Interm Style Sheet format" to indicate that something better is coming.
> Alternately, we might want to keep style sheet version numbers in line with
> HTML version numbers for simplicity. Everyone knows that HTML 3.0 is
> coming, so they would assume that HTML 3.0 "style sheets" are coming too.
> There are other benefits. I believe it would:
> slow the creation of "tomorrow's legacy documents."
> dispell the myth that the HTML WG is "against" presentation.
> encourage the usage of CLASS, which would contribute to its usage in
> robots and other software.
> allow us to judge how people use CLASS so that we can think about
> standardizing some usages.
> increase the awareness of platform portability issues.
> put the IETF and W3C back in the driver's seat with respect to the
> direction of HTML and the Web.
> Comments? Ideas? Should I present a more technical specification? I would
> imagine the language would be a touched-up subset of the current CSS proposal.
> Paul Prescod
I am not sure that all the 'benefits' would arrive as Paul hopes, but I agree
strongly with the need for a properly specified, expansible, stylesheet
language. The CSS stuff looks very good to me, since it is both easy
to understand and use. Question -- how many browser implementors are/will
be interested in integrating a basic CSS?