Re: Cougar DTD: Do not use CDATA declared content for SCRIPT (fwd)

Albert Lunde (Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu)
Mon, 29 Jul 1996 23:55:48 -0500 (CDT)


Message-Id: <199607300455.AA140182548@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Cougar DTD: Do not use CDATA declared content for SCRIPT (fwd)
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 23:55:48 -0500 (CDT)
In-Reply-To: <199607300345.UAA01833@server.livingston.com> from "MegaZone" at Jul 29, 96 08:45:13 pm
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)

>The formalism itself should not be a hack. If a script cannot currently
>be legal SGML content, then either a content type should be devised
>that works or SCRIPT should not be formalized in its current form at
>all.

This phrase inspired another wandering thought: perhaps an HTML document
and some of its related script(s) could be stored on disk and
"sent over the wire" in some form of a MIME multi-part document.

I have my doubts that this is feasible, given the limited use of
multi-part types in HTTP to date, but it is an approach that would
trade the limits of SGML, for another familar framework. (Prior
work on MIME transmission of SGML and HTML by IETF working groups
may be relevant, though it was focused on e-mail.)

If something that's strictly MIME isn't feasible, 
another "container" document type might have
merit. It seems like a number of the problems come from using HTML/SGML
as a "container" for arbitrary objects/languages.