Re: HTML 3.2 PR: Please add CLASS attribute!

Peter Flynn (pflynn@curia.ucc.ie)
30 Nov 1996 23:12:22 +0000 (GMT)


Date: 30 Nov 1996 23:12:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
Subject: Re: HTML 3.2 PR: Please add CLASS attribute!
In-reply-to: <adJoy4uYO5ZD089yn@htmlhelp.com> (galactus@htmlhelp.com)
To: galactus@htmlhelp.com (ArnoudEngelfriet)
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-id: <199611302312.XAA05702@curia.ucc.ie>

   > Right. No-one in their right minds should expect 3.2 to be anything
   > other than a toy.

   Then which DTD should I advise people to validate against if they're
   just beginning to understand the necessity of validation? HTML 3.2
   with CLASS would cover almost every current document, except those
   using frames.

I should have qualified that: I was speaking from the standpoint of
the experienced user. For a beginner I guess pretty much whatever
comes to hand, from HTML 2.0 to Cougar.

   Is HTML Pro already available on Webtechs or the KGV? Do you think
   it would be a good alternative to HTML 3.2?

I believe it is in some of the public validators already (I've been
traveling a lot recently, so I'm not up to date on soem of the
backlog). I would not recommend HTML Pro for the beginner.

   Second, if I adapt my copy of HTML 3.2 to something I like, I can
   validate all my documents easily, using SP or something. But then
   what DOCTYPE declaration should I use, if I want advanced browsers
   that support arbitrary DTDS to be able to parse my documents?

   <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//WDG//DTD HTML 3.2g//EN"
    "http://www.htmlhelp.com/dtd/html-3.2g">

That looks fine, maybe call the filename part of the URL "html-3.2g.dtd"
in case any UAs get picky.

///Peter