Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:22:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?= <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Markku Savela <email@example.com> cc: firstname.lastname@example.org In-Reply-To: <199709250713.KAA30441@anise.tte.vtt.fi> Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.96.970925100639.361J-100000@enoshima> Subject: Re: Goals of HTML (and XML)? (was Re: Foreign Words and Phrases..) On Thu, 25 Sep 1997, Markku Savela wrote: > This discussion seems to be shooting into directions where HTML is not > intended to go, when it starts to talk about elements with application > specific semantic (such as taxonomic names etc.). Such things are best > left to other tagging systems (for example, XML based) or already > existing SGML applications (TEI etc). Exactly! > The 'class' attribute also takes HTML dangerously close to application > specific tagging systems. "<span class=taxon> ... </span>" is very > close to "<taxon> ... </taxon>". Perhaps this is the right way to > proceed in some cases: you can have WEB document and logical document > in the same source (without needing to define a new SGML application > and DTD). Then, one might question what we need XML for? I think this was done on purpose. First, something is needed in HTML to be able to connect various styles to the same element. Second, it's indeed so that HTML<->XML converters may convert from HTML class attributes to XML element names. XML is a long-term endeavor, and has the advantage that much more detailled structeres can be validated than with HTML. Regards, Martin.