On Sun, Jun 25, 2006 at 04:33:24PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
I've already pointed out that a "does exactly
what we want for thirty
things, but is named for only one, necessitating the creation of
twenty-nine more duplicates on the off-chance we'll change it later"
approach can be avoided for ease of differentiation later by separating
semantics from presentation, and merely linking the two together. Brion
commented with an explanation of what's going on that sounds like it
might actually be taking the approach I favored, and only the initial
statements' description of what the <poem> tags do created a contrary
impression. You seem to think that the behavior assumed in that
contrary impression is a better way to do things, however, and somehow
have chosen to avoid addressing my statements about the manner in which
the same positive effects can be had without the weighty negatives.
Naw, Chad; we're all in violent agreement.
*How* the poem tag does what it does is precisely the way you, I, and
everyone else who I've seen post thinks it ought to: by leveraging CSS.
Now, Steve, on the other hand, has raised a good question: what happens
when people *do* want the <recipe> tag? :-)
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA
http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?