Putting many things in DTDs (was Re: What's APPLET doing inside PRE?)

Abigail (abigail@ny.fnx.com)
Thu, 2 Jan 1997 01:48:14 -0500 (EST)

Message-Id: <199701020648.BAA04155@melgor.ny.fnx.com>
Subject: Putting many things in DTDs (was Re: What's APPLET doing inside PRE?)
To: www-html@www10.w3.org
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 1997 01:48:14 -0500 (EST)
From: "Abigail" <abigail@ny.fnx.com>
In-Reply-To: <199701012145.VAA21111@curia.ucc.ie> from "Peter Flynn" at Jan 1, 97 09:45:12 pm


You, Peter Flynn, wrote:
++    IM-just-as-HO, that's reason enough to advocate it. If people stop using
++    FRAMEs and BANNERs and SPACERs and all of those dreaful little hacks until
++    someone gets a legit way to implement them in a right way then we will get
++ That's exactly what HTML Pro does.

Hmm, I read "implement them in a right way" as "implementing in a user
agent", but HTML Pro is a DTD, combining the various DTDs.  I don't
want to criticize your work, but so what? Even if HTML Pro puts FRAME,
BANNER and SPACER nicely in a DTD, does that suddenly mean it is now
"right" to use them? There are various objections against the use of
FRAME, BANNER and SPACER, and I don't see why they would suddely go
away because they appear in HTML Pro.

More in general, I wonder, what is the point of HTML Pro? Fine, it sums
all proposed and implemented elements, but so what? What does it gain
me to have a document which validates according to HTML Pro? AFAIK,
there isn't a browser which can deal with all that is "allowed" by HTML

++    Add my name to that list of people wanting CLASS and ID in HTML 3.2 (there
++    IS one being made, ISN'T there? :-))

Why would one like to have CLASS and ID in HTML 3.2? HTML 3.2 is
supposed to be "describe current practise". Adding CLASS and ID doesn't
suddenly make browsers understand CLASS and ID.

I rather have browsers understand CLASS and ID than having a
descritive DTD that lists them, while browsers don't.


Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv