From: Gavin Nicol <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 16:02:39 GMT Message-Id: <199608081602.QAA24615@wiley.EBT.COM> To: firstname.lastname@example.org CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org In-reply-to: <199608081510.IAA22194@pele.ckm.ucsf.edu> (email@example.com) Subject: Re: deprecated tags in Wilbur & Cougar -Reply -Reply >How, then, do you conserve structural information from the rich DTD in the >downtranslation process to a validatable HTML doc? And how can other >applications determine that structure? If the choices are either tag soup >or att-itis, it seems that att-itis confines the mess to a managable >corner of the problem space (no, a bowl of tag soup won't cure >att-itis). This is a different problem to what I was responding to. I was responding to (what I read in your message) as putting attributes into the source SGML for the purposes of down-conversion. In response to your real question, I'll pose a few questions of my own. In the down translation process: 1) Why do you need to preserve the SGML structure? 2) If you need to preserve the structure, why not just send the SGML? 3) Given an application that can derive structure from attributes, don't you think it would be a trivial matter (indeed, in some ways easier!) to derive the structure from GI's? 4) Given the interaction between GI and attribute selectors, doesn't CLASS complicate stylesheet writing as compared to pure GI's?