Re: Why a DTD for HTML 3.2? (fwd)

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Wed, 22 May 1996 16:07:54 -0400


Message-Id: <m0uMKCK-0002UPC@beach.w3.org>
To: "Harold A. Driscoll" <harold@driscoll.chi.il.us>
Cc: marc@pele.ckm.ucsf.edu (Marc Salomon), www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Why a DTD for HTML 3.2? (fwd) 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 May 1996 14:09:57 GMT."
             <2.2.16.19960522140957.3f4fdea0@pop.interaccess.com> 
Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 16:07:54 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <2.2.16.19960522140957.3f4fdea0@pop.interaccess.com>, "Harold A. Dri
scoll" writes:
>
>>The proposed 3.2 DTD is an arbitrary subset of "current practice."  
>
>Yes, it is "an arbitrary subset," but certainly a considered subset. I think
>most of us would prefer a more "perfect" DTD. But that has not been
>forthcoming

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing such a thing.

For example, I've hacked something up. See:

http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/html-pubtext/report/
(in the context of:

	http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/html-pubtext/
)

which is something I'd like to see used for technical reports
on the web. See also:

http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/SGML/spec-mgmt

Dan