First, because of various factors, I'm moving back in time, and I haven't reached your "paper", as Sina called it, as yet. Just some side comments, however: On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Janina Sajka wrote: > > ... you keep stating that it would disrupt the accessibility > > to...for example *people who have difficulties understanding large > > blocks of text* > > > > Well, it is the designer's responsibility to not use it in this fashion. > i > JS: Clearly. I thought that's what we were talking about. In part, yes. In main, however, no. You stated, in a very wide bit of generalness, that <pre> should not be used. Not that, as you seem to say with the one line comment above semi agreeing with Sina's comments, that a designer can use it, if they act responsibly, or that, at least, the idea of he/she acting responsibly, is the thrust of this discussion. It isn't. The thrust of the debate, as far as I am concerned, is the blanket denial that <pre> has any value, and the seeming opinion that it should never be used, even in emergencies, which this use was. I, as Sina, still dispute that idea, although I may not, after I read your ATC. > > As any tag, even stylesheets or any other element can be exhaustively > > and ridiculously overused, so can the pre element tag. I wanted to know As Janina, I have to disagree with that statement, at least in form. Her examples of <p>, etc., were enough to prove the point. What I think you were getting at, is that any element can be incorrectly used, or used in such a way as to defeat its value, and make it more of a liability. The thought here, however, seems to be, that <pre>, not only has no value, but is an automatic liability, no matter what the circumstance. > > resulted from this email thread to begin with? I would love to hear your > > feed back on that precise page, > > JS: By the way, I don't believe this thread ever mentioned a specific > page where <pre> had been used. If it did, I missed it. Please provide, > and I'll go take a look. I believe the thread began when someone asked > for a tool to make html out of text, which I took to mean plain text, as > in ASCII. Since this would, of necessity, require adding semantic and Correct. However, presumably, some page did result (the word used above), from the guy's original question and situation, or he would not have asked. Thus, it is reasonable to believe, that he used the only suggestion, as tenuous as it was, which he was given, that of using <pre>...</pre>, and that therefore there is a page somewhere, that he created using this method. Regards, Luke
