Re: Goals of HTML (and XML)? (was Re: Foreign Words and Phrases..)

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?= (mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch)
Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:22:05 +0200 (MET DST)


Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:22:05 +0200 (MET DST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst?= <mduerst@ifi.unizh.ch>
To: Markku Savela <msa@hemuli.tte.vtt.fi>
cc: www-html@w3.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.