Re: Generic Markup [was:Re: deprecated tags in Wilbur & Cougar]

Gavin Nicol (gtn@ebt.com)
Sun, 11 Aug 1996 03:47:43 GMT


From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 03:47:43 GMT
Message-Id: <199608110347.DAA03866@wiley.EBT.COM>
To: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
CC: kmc@harlequin.com, marc@ckm.ucsf.edu, www-style@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
In-reply-to: <199608101657.MAA27899@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> (message from Paul Prescod on Sat, 10 Aug 1996 12:57:13 -0400)
Subject: Re: Generic Markup [was:Re: deprecated tags in Wilbur & Cougar]

>Sure, but that "sufficiently powerful language" is likely to be chosen by
>the SGML working group within the W3C. The impression I got from your posts
>was that we should just move to GI-based element subclassing instead of
>attribute-based subclassing. Until we require User Agents to parse DTDs (or
>some other semantic mapping file), that WOULD result in chaos. So far the
>conversation seems centered on parsing. Parsing GIs is easy. Understanding
>them is hard (that's where DTDs and DSSSL come in).

We have to look at the overall picture. GI's + CSS is not a bad
combination, GI's + DSSSL is better. The problems with attributes is
that once we take a step down that path, momentum will keep pushing us
down it.

Parsing is the least of our worries, which is what I was saying. I wa
also saying that anything that can attach semantics to attributes can
do the same thing with GI's, in a probably simpler manner.