Message-Id: <199607140540.AA229792818@merle.acns.nwu.edu> Subject: Re: a good idea To: email@example.com Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 00:40:17 -0500 (CDT) In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=Montgomery%l=EXCHANGE_SERVE-960713185206Zfirstname.lastname@example.org> from "Erik Aronesty" at Jul 13, 96 11:52:06 am From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) > > I could care less about SGML rules..... [...] > Maintaining HTML as a subset of SGML is not a goal of the WG charter NOR > is it a goal of W3. If we head off vendors with ideas that are easy to > implement, parse and author... and ideas that work with existing > browsers..... somebody might listen......(personally I believe the > vendors are listening). I think this is a bit of an overstatement. All the existing specifications for HTML that were developed by the HTML working group, and what we've seen of those forthcoming from the W3C, have been expressed in terms of SGML. I'd agree SGML has some shortcomings, but it is a rather large framework for defining markup languages: if we abandon SGML, we may be forced to reinvent it. Interoperable standards require _some_ precise formalism that can express what is valid markup.