LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for HTML-WG Archives


HTML-WG Archives

HTML-WG Archives


HTML-WG@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HTML-WG Home

HTML-WG Home

HTML-WG  November 1994

HTML-WG November 1994

Subject:

Re: How prescriptive can/should we be? [Was: DL content model ]

From:

Peter Flynn <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 17 Nov 94 05:30:38 EST

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (91 lines)


Dan writes [re DT/DD]
> Ok... we're trying to specify current practice, but we have on many
> occasions decided that some practices are bogus and won't be part of
> the standard.

I'm still not convinced we should specify current practice where it's
as bogus as (DT|DD)+. Either DL is a discussion list (in which case we
want something like (DT+|DD*)*) or it's not (in which case we allow
almost anything).

If users are random enough to have used DD to indent a paragraph when
they could have used BLOCKQUOTE I don't think we should encourage them.
Better we should plan for align= and margin= in the future.

> 1. "If a document is HTML 2.0 compliant, then it will display properly
> on contemporary browsers."
> 
> This is largely true (except for browser bugs like comment parsing,
> and obscure SGML features like marked sections), and very much a goal
> of this specification.

And for those (many?) browsers which ignore cite, samp, kbd, etc

> 2. "If a document displays properly on contemporary browsers, then it
> is HTML 2.0 compliant."

All mice are elephants :-) and some users obviously believe this is true.

> This is obviously false, and not really a goal of the specification.
> User agents will probably always support non-standard crap. But each
> will do so in its own way. In fact, I challenge anyone to come up with
> a tractible defintion of "displays properly on contemporary browsers."

Like someone once wrote, <q>my definition of an agreeable person is one
who agrees with me</q>.

> 3. "If a document displays correctly on contemporary browsers, then
> there exists some HTML 2.0 compliant document that displays the same
> information."

Depends on the meaning of "correctly". Does that mean "as I want it" 
(which could be anything) or "without obvious typographic errors"?

But in general this is a good test, thank you Dan.

> The one outstanding issue w.r.t this 3rd conjecture is <IMG> inside
> <PRE>.  I'm surprised there wasn't more fuss about it.
> 
> In my testing, I ran across many abuses of <PRE>. A common idiom was:
> 

What about

> <PRE>
> <img src="figure1.gif">
>                             <b>caption for figure 1</b>
> </PRE>

because they want the caption centered :-)

> But <PRE> is also used to build forms and do all sorts of other crazy
> things where folks may be using <IMG> inside <PRE> for an effect that
> _cannot_ be recoded to conform to the current DTD.

Have you come across any examples where it would be impossible even to
approximate the result in a conformant manner? 

> Given the relatively small amount of flak that I have received
> regarding this issue, I'm tempted to try to "slip this one by" and
> thereby discourage folks from abusing <PRE> in the future.

Applauded.

> In fact, in an earlier draft of the HTML DTD, <b>, <i>, and <tt> were
> allowed _only_ inside PRE, and <em>, <strong> etc. were allowed _only_
> outside PRE.

Yes, I think I remember bitching to someone about this at some stage.

> So two questions:
> 	1. Do folks agree with my assessment of the above 3 conjectures,
> and
> 	2. Should I change the DTD to allow IMG inside PRE?

Yes and Yes.

///Peter


Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager