At 03:12 PM 12/12/95 EST, Jesse McClusky wrote:
>-> From: David Seibert <[log in to unmask]>
>> Many authors may find that they are more productive, or that the quality
>> of their work improves, if they first organize the text conceptually and
>> then define the necessary styles in the header, instead of trying to
>> organize text and define styles at the same time.
>This is a good principal, one which I fully support and agree with.
>However, if you FORCE them to abide by it, human nature will dictate
>that the majority will rebel. Instead, using style classes should
>be emphatically encouraged in the draft/rfc/etc and all related
>documents, but the STYLE override should still be allowed. It's the
>same with children. You can tell them the burner is hot all you want,
>but until they find out what hot means, they will want to touch it.
>Jesse McClusky ([log in to unmask])
I agree with you. I hope the readership will take care, though, not
to equate "people" with "children." Rational self-interest could
dictate the legitimate use of STYLE for one-off changes in short-lived
unique documents, even if CLASS and style sheets are available (just as
rational self-interest will dictate the use of CLASS as soon as someone
gets tired of setting all the presentation properties identically n times,
or needs to search on targeted content of their own making!).
<!-- Eve Maler ........ [log in to unmask] ...... voice +1 617 270 5750 -->
<!-- ArborText, Inc. ........................ http://www.arbortext.com -->
<!-- Coauthor, Developing SGML DTDs .......... http://www.prenhall.com -->
<!-- Sponsor, Davenport ..... http://www.ora.com/davenport/README.html -->