Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

Paul Prescod (papresco@technologist.com)
Wed, 09 Jul 1997 16:59:52 -0400


Message-ID: <33C3FBC8.FBF2761A@technologist.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 1997 16:59:52 -0400
From: Paul Prescod <papresco@technologist.com>
To: Steven Champeon <schampeo@hesketh.com>
CC: PatrickMc@usa.net, Jordan Reiter <jreiter@mail.slc.edu>, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

Steven Champeon wrote:
> I ought to knock you for not clearly specifying
> that "abcd" as used above was of course merely a placeholder for #PCDATA.
> And the question arises, is <P>abcd</P> really the complete element,
> since it can contain #PCDATA? What about those elements which do not
> allow #PCDATA but which allow #CDATA? 

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about above. Are you just
kidding around? "abcd" was a placeholder for any string of legal
character data including "#PCDATA", "FOO" and "BAR". Yes, I think that
the element above is a complete element. #CDATA is not an SGML keyword
or HTML element.

> We're talking about the difference between referring to something in
> theory and in practice. And <P> is the worst example, since it has
> been the center of so much controversy over its proper use.

I don't know that there has been any contraversy over the use of the
HTML paragraph element for several years since it became a container. I
know that there has been a contraversy over the *implementation* because
some people at Netscape didn't know the difference between a "tag" and
an "element". That is reason enough for me to be careful about this
issue. I'm surprised that the HTML authors here who have been burned by
that screw-up are not all uniformly careful about the issue.

 Paul Prescod