>I think the intentions are right, and the people who are suggesting <TEXT>
>and <C> are smart, but feel that they are too open to abuse.
>If we create a tag with no semantics it can be used anywehere without
>ever being wrong. We must force authors to properly tag the semantics
>of their document. We must force editor vendors to make that choice
>explicit in their interfaces.
You can't make html idiot-proof, because idiots are just too clever. If
semantically meaningless tags are rigorously excluded from html, some
idiots will misuse semantically meaningful tags to obtain formatting
effects (which will of course have bizarre effects in browsers that use
different default stylistic conventions for the same semantic tags). Just
as some programmers will write FORTRAN in any programming language, some
authors will write word-for-windows documents in any hypertext authoring
A better (but difficult) objective is to encourage separation of
presentation from semantics by doing both of the following, despite the
tension between them:
- Make style-sheets so powerful that the most beautiful documents on the web,
the ones that get "wow" responses from readers, are produced using style
sheets and not through abuse of html. Those who might be tempted to hack
presentation in html will instead be attracted to hacking style sheets.
- Make style-sheets so easy to use that people are not tempted to save a
little time by just misusing html tags.