Re: Using your own DTD (was Re: %flow and headers and address)

Peter Flynn (pflynn@curia.ucc.ie)
01 Oct 1996 02:06:04 +0100


Date: 01 Oct 1996 02:06:04 +0100
From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
Subject: Re: Using your own DTD (was Re: %flow and headers and address)
In-reply-to: <v02140b01ae7613c7c0e6@[192.168.22.85]> (murray@spyglass.com)
To: murray@spyglass.com
Cc: MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU, www-html@w3.org
Message-id: <199610010106.CAA09588@curia.ucc.ie>

   Well, I meant that a little tongue-in-cheek. There's a certain irony for me
   in anyone trying to create a "standard" HTML DTD anymore, given W3C's
   gradual movement into the role of "standards body" (as defined commonly in
   the press, the industry, etc.). I sometimes wonder if you and I and a few
   others around here aren't all sitting on a large mushroom with a hookah,
   and just don't realize it.

At least it's more fun that trying to use 3.2 for actual _information_ :-)
(relights hookah, passes it around)

   I have made the modules of the modular 2.0 DTD (which is functionally
   identical to RFC 1866) available, so if Peter wanted to use that as a
   basis, I'd be happy to lend what time I have available in assisting his use

I never really got to grips with the modular 2.0 but it's something I
should look at. Thanks for the offer.

   of that material. I believe that would be much preferred to creating a
   monolithic DTD, as then public submission of DTD fragments would be

IMHO, HTML is microlithic: it's too small to need modularisation.
Hell, the DTD I used for my Web book was done in DocBook into which I
had embedded the whole of HTML inthe content model for SCREEN and
DISPLAY so that I could be sure my examples parsed. The shorn HTML
occupied about 10 lines of code I think (OK, so I ditched the
ATTLISTS, don't spoil the story :-)

///Peter