Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

Paul Prescod (papresco@technologist.com)
Thu, 10 Jul 1997 19:34:01 -0400


Message-ID: <33C57169.7124477E@technologist.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 19:34:01 -0400
From: Paul Prescod <papresco@technologist.com>
To: "Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor" <roconnor@wronski.math.uwaterloo.ca>
CC: Scott Matthewman <scottm@danielson.co.uk>, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTML 4.0 draft available

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor wrote:
> 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.  

SGML is more powerful and configurable, but GML was also a
"Generalized" (and extendible) markup language. AFAIK there is no
particular fixed-tag language that SGML derives from. You are right
that  you can't make a language that has all of the elements that
people will want. Moreover, structural tags have been so studiously
ignored by browsers and even, to a certain extent, search engines that
it does not make sense to standardize more without specific
applications in mind.

What would a UA do with:

<PERSON>Paul Prescod</PERSON>
<PERSON>papresco@technologist.com</PERSON>
<PERSON>paul</PERSON>

For these things to take off there would have to be a precise semantic
and syntactic definition and probably some "suggested behaviors for
browser vendors".

 Paul Prescod

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBM8Vw7x2mf2lcnhjDEQJnWwCeJ/yS1iYnKpEOrP7KK/qiiQeN7j0AoPFO
8ZzTgHKKenrJioseNkTQPBpS
=HU/E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----