From: Gavin Nicol <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 03:47:43 GMT Message-Id: <199608110347.DAA03866@wiley.EBT.COM> To: email@example.com CC: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com 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.