- From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 11:45:02 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
At 12:29 PM 8/11/96 GMT, Gavin Nicol wrote: >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. So that's what the SGML ERB is for. How does this relate to discussions of HTML and HTML CLASSes? >We both know how meaningful those semantics really are though don't >we? Better than nothing. =) I'm only half kidding. Without a concrete proposal for a mechanism to attach semantics to new elements (i.e. archforms, DSSSL, CSS+), it's the "best we've got." My understanding is that the SGML ERB will come up with that proposal. (although I'd love to know their predicted time frames...) Paul Prescod
Received on Sunday, 11 August 1996 11:45:25 UTC