Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor (
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 11:15:29 -0400 (EDT)

Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 11:15:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor" <>
To: Scott Matthewman <>
Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>

On Thu, 10 Jul 1997, Scott Matthewman wrote:

> > To support <FILENAME> new browsers will have to be made.  To support CSS,
> > nw browers have to be made.  It would be pointless to create a <FILENAME>
> > element because if browers supported this, then they would also support
> > <SPAN CLASS=Filename>, which is a better solution.
> To support HTML 4.0 new browsers will have to be made.
> Let's all go home now ;-)
> A FILENAME element fits the model in that it's contextual; I guess it has
> extra subtleties compared to, say, SAMP. Sounds OK to me...

If we support FILENAME, then what?  There are millions of possible
contextual mark up.  As I understand this is the whole reason why GML was
abandoned for SGML.  The solution to this problem is to use XML.  But HTML
4.0 isn't XML.  I could live with FILENAME added, but why that one and not
others? We have to draw the line somewhere.  Since we have a general CSS
solution, I think the fewer the better. 

Russell O'Connor            |    
"And truth irreversibly destroys the meaning of its own message"
-- Anindita Dutta, "The Paradox of Truth, the Truth of Entropy"