Re: HTML 3 DTD? [was: frames ]

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Tue, 16 Jan 1996 04:20:01 -0500


Message-Id: <m0tc7Yf-0002UXC@beach.w3.org>
To: "James K. Tauber" <jtauber@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
Cc: "Keith M. Corbett" <kmc@specialform.com>, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTML 3 DTD? [was: frames ] 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 02 Jan 1996 10:16:11 +0800."
             <Pine.OSF.3.91.960102100537.12886B-100000@cyllene.uwa.edu.au> 
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 04:20:01 -0500
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <Pine.OSF.3.91.960102100537.12886B-100000@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>, "Jame
s K. Tauber" writes:
>
>On Mon, 1 Jan 1996, Keith M. Corbett wrote:
>> Maybe this is incredibly obvious, but I would like to see W3C and the HTML
>> WG continue to encourage the practice of using PUBLIC identifiers to refer
>> to standardized public text.
>
>I think this will be even more valuable if plans for network FPI 
>resolution go ahead (see http://www.entmp.org/fpi-urn/). In the case of the 
>expired HTML 3.0 public text, people could still refer to "-//W3C//DTD 
>HTML 3.0 Draft//EN" or some such thing that the FPI resolution scheme 
>could resolve to a DTD available online at W3C.

If it were available online at W3C (which it is), folks could just write:

  <!doctype html system "http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/html3/html3.dtd">

If you feel like it, you can write:

  <!doctype html public "-//somebody//DTD HTMl 3.0//EN"
	"http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/html3/html3.dtd">

if "somebody" takes ownership responsibility. That generally coincides
with publication and/or software release. At that point, a "stable
network filename" (see http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/Addressing/#STANF) should
be issued.

It's possible STANFs and FPIs could interoperate somehow.

Dan