[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch
From: |
Philip Webb |
Subject: |
Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch |
Date: |
Mon, 17 Aug 1998 00:23:56 -0400 (EDT) |
980816 Dave Eaton wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 1998, Philip Webb wrote:
>> (2) there is no `valid, correct' behaviour, since the specs are broken;
> I think you can see a number of us dissagree with you
> that the spec is "broken" and believe current Lynx behavior is "correct",
it's not clear that anyone other than you disagrees
the specs are inconsistent & unclear;
if they do, they should offer some analysis of the specs themselves.
> though we have no objection to alternate renderings in the code,
> so long as they are optional, configurable, and not the default.
i've reviewed the thread(s) & don't see a majority:
for keeping current behaviour as default: yourself, LV, MW, NHE (4);
for not collapsing <BR><BR> by default: AG, DH, JM, DW, me (5).
i'm NOT claiming a majority of lynx-devers NOR suggesting we hold votes,
but there is a real range of opinion & so far no consensus.
there's also the little matter of rational argument.
i presented 4 careful analyses of the HTML 4.0 specs
& the real-life situation re <BR><BR> & document authors
(980812 1716 (to which you replied), 980812 2026 (reply to you),
980815 1837, 980816 1902):
you are the only contributor to have replied to my criticism of the specs,
to which i responded without further comment from you;
no-one has addressed the real-life state of affairs
in which the typical document author has very little knowledge of HTML
& very little time or inclination to learn about its finer points.
you made a distinction `document structure vs page layout'
& JM distinguished `procedural/structural mark-up systems',
which i may understand (are they the same distinction BTW?),
but if you believe more than a very tiny minority of document authors
have the slightest knowledge of or interest in such things,
you simply don't live in the real world:
even highly professional newspapers haven't time for it,
eg Washington Post (uses ../ ) & Financial Times (London) ( <BR><BR> ).
> Now, would it be OK to move on to other topics?
if you've run out of arguments, by all means move on to something else.
the solution is simple: a run-time configurable choice (needs programming)
or at least changing the lynx.cfg default to match real-life out there.
--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : address@hidden
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto
- lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, David Henderson, 1998/08/14
- lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch (fwd), David Henderson, 1998/08/14
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Michael Warner, 1998/08/14
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Philip Webb, 1998/08/15
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Larry W. Virden, 1998/08/15
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Jason F. McBrayer, 1998/08/16
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Philip Webb, 1998/08/16
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Dave Eaton, 1998/08/16
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch,
Philip Webb <=
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Larry W. Virden, 1998/08/17
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Al Gilman, 1998/08/17
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Benjamin C. W. Sittler, 1998/08/17
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, Benjamin C. W. Sittler, 1998/08/17
- Re: lynx-dev New <BR> collapsing patch, David Woolley, 1998/08/18
- lynx-dev Whither Standards? (was Re: New <BR> collapsing patch), Michael Warner, 1998/08/19
- Re: lynx-dev Whither Standards? (was Re: New <BR> collapsing patch), Mike Castle, 1998/08/19
- Re: lynx-dev Whither Standards? (was Re: New <BR> collapsing patch), Michael Warner, 1998/08/20
- Re: lynx-dev Whither Standards? (was Re: New <BR> collapsing patch), Al Gilman, 1998/08/20