From: Gavin Nicol <email@example.com> Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 12:29:13 GMT Message-Id: <199608111229.MAA09495@wiley.EBT.COM> To: firstname.lastname@example.org CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, In-reply-to: <199608110659.CAA07210@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> (message from Paul Prescod on Sun, 11 Aug 1996 02:59:58 -0400) Subject: Re: Generic Markup [was:Re: deprecated tags in Wilbur & Cougar] >Momentum will keep pushing HTML down that path, but HTML is already down >that path. HTML is defined as a set of GIs and attributes (a DTD!) and will >probably always be. That's why there is a parallel W3C development track for >Generic SGML on the Web. How is "HTML with user-defined GIs" substantially >different than "basic SGML?" Wouldn't it be redundant to have both? That's precisely my point. HTML is fine, and should probably stick around for some time to come, but "minimal+" SGML is more important, and a (backwardly compatible) superset in terms of functionality. >>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. > >But the HTML GI's do not need to have semantics attached to them. They >already have them. CLASSes are supposed to be refinements of those >semantics, not new ones altogether. We both know how meaningful those semantics really are though don't we?