Re: Combined DTD - 3.2 + CSS1? (fwd)

Scott Bigham (dsb@CS.Duke.EDU)
Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:41:12 -0400 (EDT)


From: Scott Bigham <dsb@CS.Duke.EDU>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 20:41:12 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199704170041.UAA09511@goldfinch.cs.duke.edu>
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: Combined DTD - 3.2 + CSS1? (fwd)

MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com> wrote:

>When anythign that impacts the DTD becomes an official recommendation
>the DTD SHOULD be revved.  I strongly feel there should always be an 
>official W3C DTD that represents all recommendations to date.  What is
>the sense of having seperate groups for different modules when it all
>ends up waiting on the HTML WG for their next rev?

Whatever happened to the idea of a modular DTD?[1]  That could take
care of the problem elegantly.  Each recommendation would provide a DTD
"module", and then the DTD for, say 3.2 plus style sheets plus
Javascript would be:

    <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN" [
      <!ENTITY % stylestuff PUBLIC
                  "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Style Sheet Extensions//EN">
      <!ENTITY % scriptstuff PUBLIC
                  "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Javascript Extensions//EN">
      %stylestuff;
      %scriptstuff;
    ]>

or some "glue" DTD thrown together on the quick.

>And there *was* a Cougar DTD out, I just can't seem to find it in the
>new structure (maybe they didn't link it...).

It's right where it always was, at [2].  You're right, there doesn't
appear to be a link to it at [3].

						-sbigham

[1] <URL:http://ogopogo.nttc.edu/spec/html/modular-dtd.html>
[2] <URL:http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Cougar/HTML.dtd>
[3] <URL:http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Cougar/>