Re: Experimental HTML DTD with OBJECT, style, ...

Harold A. Driscoll (harold@driscoll.chi.il.us)
Wed, 10 Jul 1996 23:15:02 +0100


Message-Id: <2.2.32.19960710221502.00656090@pop.interaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 23:15:02 +0100
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
From: "Harold A. Driscoll" <harold@driscoll.chi.il.us>
Subject: Re: Experimental HTML DTD with OBJECT, style, ...
Cc: www-html@w3.org, dsr@w3.org

At 17:02 10/7/96 -0400, Dan Connolly wrote:
>In collaboration with some of our member organizations, Dave
>Raggett has collected some of the DTD fragments in various proposals
>into a DTD for testing purposes.
>
>Please see:
>
>http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Cougar/HTML.dtd

A very impressive piece of work.

I do have one question and concern. I notice that the <STRIKE> element is
mentioned in a comment in RFC 1866, defined in Wilbur, and replaced with <S>
in Cougar.

It would seem undesirable to introduce one element in Wilbur, and then
change its name in Cougar. If plans are to change it from <STRIKE> to <S>,
then in the long run I think it would be better to make it <S> in Wilbur as
well. Alternately, keep it as <STRIKE> in Cougar.

Personally, I don't think it matters which name is used. I can see minor
advantages to each over the other. So it would seem to be an arbitrary
decision, best made and not changed, either way.

/Harold
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Harold A. Driscoll                       mailto:harold@driscoll.chi.il.us
#include <std/disclaimer>      http://homepage.interaccess.com/~driscoll/