Re: HTML 3.2 PR: %html.content

Peter Flynn (pflynn@curia.ucc.ie)
10 Jan 1997 09:23:01 +0000 (GMT)


Date: 10 Jan 1997 09:23:01 +0000 (GMT)
From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
Subject: Re: HTML 3.2 PR: %html.content
To: www-html@www10.w3.org
Message-id: <199701100923.JAA06269@curia.ucc.ie>

> :PLAINTEXT was originally an alternative to BODY, not an appendage to
> :it.
> 
> The explanation of Plaintext I read (after I discovered that
> Netscape/Mosaic stopped handling any markup after a <plaintext> choosing
> to ignore a </plaintext>) stated that UAs would not have to treat anything
> after a <plaintext> as markup but render it as "plaintext".  So that
> suggests <plaintext> implies </html>.  If my reading was correct, any
> </html> after <plaintext> _could_ be visible to the user.
 
The expectations of PLAINTEXT, as implemented, were that _all_ text after
the start-tag would be rendered as it stood, ie all parsing would cease,
so the user would see </html> as you suggest, if it were in the file.

I don't think this is possible if you stick to the rules of SGML, but 
the HTML end-tag (a) is implied and (b) was in practice never inserted
(not that I ever saw, anyway).

///Peter