Need a new DTD for style sheets

Charles Peyton Taylor (CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil)
Thu, 30 May 1996 12:26:56 -0800


Message-Id: <s1ad9435.004@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 12:26:56 -0800
From: Charles Peyton Taylor <CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject:  Need a new DTD for style sheets

Microsoft is releasing a beta of internet Explorer 3.0, 
which they claim supports style sheets (I don't have 
Windows '95 right now so I can't test this out.) 
This means that style sheets are less of a rarely-
supported, unstable feature and more of a reality
on the web.

A long while ago I added <link>s and classes 
to my documents so that my documents would be 
ready when styles were supported by major browser 
vendors.

I've been trying to get people here where I work 
to validate their HTML documents, but I look pretty 
hypocritical when my documents (with style markup)
don't validate.

So I can either a) use only HTML 3 tags and validate
under the HTML 3 DTD or b) take out style tags in all 
my documents (50 current) and use the wilbur DTD.

I also used the <acronym> tag in case the blind were 
reading my pages, so if I use the wilbur DTD I can't 
use that tag, either.

If I use the HTML 3 DTD, I can't use Width="100%" in 
my tables, which wouldn't be so bad if any browser 
understood the align=justify attribute.

So you see, there is a need for a new DTD that 
encompasses all that wilbur has, plus styles,
and, imho, <acronym>.  How far along is cougar?
I could write a DTD, but I would be guessing 
whether it was done right or not.  (My SGML 
experience is what I've done with HTML.)

As it is now, wilbur is harmful to propagation
of style sheets. (IMHO, of course, but I'd be 
doubtful of any argument.)