On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:19:54PM +0000, John Levon spake thusly: > > Forgive me for pointing out that we are living in a "finger painting > > matrix" where people expect to be able to, and routinely practice, > > painting large areas of text in whatever visual style they find > > suitable, rather than building the appearance upon suitably > > (semantically) defined logical styles, be they paragraph of character > > styles. That's the way to create documents that are output-able but > > don't self-document their structure. Even LaTeX has a bit of this > > implicit philosophy. > > > > Shouldn't we set a better example? > > Certainly we should. What does this have to do with the question at > hand ? LCS via ranges does not apply an abandonment of semantic markup; > why do you think it does ? > > regards > john
What I meant was that in light of the smallness (assuming good authoring practices) of these style instances -- as rare(-ish) exceptions to common rules -- the balance of pros and cons looks more favourable for the insets/objects paradigm. And the paradigm will tend to support and encourage these good practices. Of course it's possible to support semantic styling with ranges too... heck, you can practice structured programming in assembler if you want to (only partly tongue-in-cheek ;-) Cheers Martin
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
