At 04:18 PM 2/5/96 -0500, Dave Raggett wrote:
>Good engineering provides a solution that scales and which continues to fit
>users' needs as they grow in experience. You seem to be suggesting that this
>is a bad thing, and should be avoided by the IETF. Why?
IETF HTML would meet _all_ users _needs_. It would be as flexible as WG
HTML, but would specify things in rigorus manners that would sometimes cause
more encoding effort than shortcut solutions. Sometimes there are good
reasons for short cuts. In this case the STYLE attribute shortcut (further)
weakens the central paradigm of the language in question -- platform and
software independence through structured markup separate from presentation
There are other features that fall into this category. I do not think that
FRAMEs and inline scripts have a place in "real" HTML, but they are pretty
neat features in a consumer product, and a consumer-HTML could standardize
them. Those that wanted "pure" content-centric, process-independent
documents would stick to the IETF standards.
Perhaps those IETF standards could even advance more quickly because we
would not be bickering about how to implement features in a way that the
consumers will find "palatable".