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  March 1995

HTML-WG March 1995

Subject:

Re: HTML table model suggestion

From:

[log in to unmask] (Bernie J Scholz)

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Fri, 31 Mar 95 10:32:22 EST

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (52 lines)


Daniel Glazman writes:

>Hmmm. THis argument is not valid is you use a SGML editor for authoring.
>In that case, you don't see the structure; only the software has to deal with 
>it.
Not if I am using a tool like InContext (with the Excel table editor feature 
disabled).

>Are you sure such a definition won't be proposed soon ??? I am quite
>certain that pages will be a subject of discussion in the next months.
One can never be sure of anything ;-) You may very well be right on this;
however my feeling on pages in an electronic medium is that they are an 
artificial holdover from the paper paradigm and really have no meaning. 

Murray Maloney writes:

> There is nothing in the spec -- or anywhere else -- that says
> that the use of HTML is limited to online browsers.  I can
> cite two uses of HTML which do have a definition of a page:
> the ICADD applications which convert HTML into Braille and large print,
> and SCO's online documentation system which allows users to
> print out whole chapters -- a collection of nodes -- can both
> make use of table heads and feet.
Ok, Ok, I change my view then that HTML is a markup for strictly electronic 
presentation. 

Daniel Glazman writes:

>More seriously, do you really want to change one single thing in the CALS table
>definition *just* because it's more natural ? Do you really want to remove a
>full compatibility with existing CALS documents *just* for this difference ???
>The game is not worth the candle..

Good point, it's not that serious of an issue to me to justify any more 
bandwidth. 
Next subject please...

- Bernie
______________________________________________________________________

   Bernhard J. (Bernie) Scholz           Internet: [log in to unmask] 
   Technical Systems Program             Phone   : 518.387.5094 
   Information Technology Lab            FAX     : 518.387.6104 
   GE Corporate Research & Development
   Bldg. K1, Room 5B28A 
   P.O. Box 8 
   Schenectady, NY 12301
______________________________________________________________________


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