Stragglers在4.01严格 [英] Stragglers in 4.01 strict
问题描述
为什么< i> ;,< b> ;,< tt>，< big>和< small>保留在HTML 4.01严格？
< table>的cellpadding，cellspacing，规则和框架属性如何？标签？
我希望答案是向后兼容性，但我认为
这就是Transitional的用途。或者是非结构元素在概念上划分为两层向后兼容性，一层是否包含被认为更需要持续支持的特征
/>
比分配给另一层的功能？
-
Harlan Messinger
删除第一层点击我的电子邮件地址。
Veuillez？ter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel。
Harlan Messinger写道：为什么< i>，< b>，< tt>，< big>和< small>保留在HTML 4.01严格？
< table>的cellpadding，cellspacing，规则和框架属性如何？标签？
i，b，显然应该取出小而大（虽然很小
是唯一有问题的）。我可以看到使用tt（打字），虽然
似乎是kbd的功能。关于表格属性，
也许是因为HTML 4.0在1997年问世，CSS 2（
引入了这些功能）直到1998年才开始.HTML 4.01 1999年的
，仅仅是一个bug修复版本。
但是对于任何理性的回答，真正的原因是
HTML WG，在他们无限期的虚伪中，决定如此。
2004年1月29日星期四，Keith Bowes写道：
为什么< i>，< b>，< tt>，< big>和< small>保留在HTML 4.01严格？
我，b，显然已经取出了小和大
为什么？为什么显然？我不明白。
相反，我不明白< u>的问题是什么？它是从HTML 4 Strict中取出的
。
Andreas Prilop写道：< blockquote class =post_quotes>
我，b，显然已经取出了小和大
为什么？为什么显然？我不明白。
相反，我不明白< u>的问题是什么？它是从HTML 4 Strict中取出的。
因为人们太倾向于使用i而不是em，例如。
因此难以准确编制索引和存档（
信息是强调的还是斜体的外观？）。
所有下划线用途链接以外的东西必须是
废除！此外，没有派生的内在含义，例如，
，例如，s和tt。是标题，插入文字还是
只是演示文稿？
但是如果你真的不明白，要么继续使用HTML 3.2（或者你的
tag de jour）或做一些阅读。
你知道吗，显然是出于一致性的原因。这是不一致的，可以消除一些表现污染，但保留其他污染。
Why were <i>, <b>, <tt>, <big>, and <small> retained in HTML 4.01 Strict?
How about the cellpadding, cellspacing, rules, and frame attributes for the
<table> tag?
I would expect the answer to be "backwards compatibility", but I thought
that''s what Transitional was for. Or is it that non-structural elements have
been divided conceptually into two layers of backwards compatibility, one
consisting of features thought to be in greater need of continuing support
than the features allocated to the other layer?
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ?ter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Harlan Messinger wrote:Why were <i>, <b>, <tt>, <big>, and <small> retained in HTML 4.01 Strict?
How about the cellpadding, cellspacing, rules, and frame attributes for the
<table> tag?
i, b, small and big should obviously have been taken out (though small
is the only problematic one). I can see the use of tt (typed), though
that seems to be the function of kbd. And about the table attributes,
maybe it was because HTML 4.0 came out in 1997 and CSS 2 (which
introduced these capabilities) wasn''t until 1998. HTML 4.01, dated
1999, was merely a bug-fix release.
But for whatever rational answer one devises, the real reason is the
HTML WG, in their indefinite hypocrisies, decided so.
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Keith Bowes wrote:
Why were <i>, <b>, <tt>, <big>, and <small> retained in HTML 4.01 Strict?
i, b, small and big should obviously have been taken out
Why? And why "obviously"? I don''t get it.
On the contrary, I don''t understand what''s wrong with <u> that it was
taken out from HTML 4 Strict.
Andreas Prilop wrote:
i, b, small and big should obviously have been taken out
Why? And why "obviously"? I don''t get it.
On the contrary, I don''t understand what''s wrong with <u> that it was
taken out from HTML 4 Strict.
Because people are too inclined to use i instead of em, for example.
And therefore make accurate indexing and archiving difficult (is the
information emphasized or just italicized for looks?).
And all uses of underlining for things other than links must be
abolished! Furthermore, there was no derived intrinsic meaning, like
there is for, for example, s and tt. Is it a title, inserted text, or
simply presentation?
But if you really don''t understand, either keep using HTML 3.2 (or your
tag soup de jour) or do some reading.
And just so you know, "obviously" is for reasons of consistency. It''s
inconsistent to take out some presentational contamination, yet keep others.
这篇关于Stragglers在4.01严格的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
