W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > October 1999

RE: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-connolly-text-html-00.txt

From: Arjun Ray <aray@q2.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 00:57:10 -0400 (EDT)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.991005004926.9682P-100000@mail.q2.net>


On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Larry Masinter wrote:

> Jukka wrote:
> 
> > I suppose this contains more examples than would really be needed.
> 
> Actually, it would be great to have a complete list as feedback to
> the "Proposed Recommendation".

Agreed.  And I can't think of a better person to compile such a list than
Jukka!:)

> Because something is obsoleted doesn't mean that it is no longer
> a reference to what the specification _used to be_. The RFC doesn't
> go away. But I wouldn't recommend anyone use the RFCs, either
> as guidelines for authoring or as a guideline for implementing.

I think this should be emphasized.  Four years ago, attempting an SGML
compliant implementation was obviously disastrous

 <URL:http://www.nyct.net/~aray/htmlwg/rcs.html>
 <URL:http://www.nyct.net/~aray/htmlwg/1224.html>

The situation hasn't really changed in all this time.

> If the HTML 4.01 document is inadequate, then we can and should fix it.

The one really important fixing it needs is to drop all normative
references to ISO8879.  Get rid of the parts and/or sections (such as
notes on implementation constraints) occasioned by the lip service to
SGML, and replace them with a BNF for Tag Soup.  That, IMHO, would go a
long way towards making 4.01 an honest spec.
 
At times, highmindedness and humbug can be indistinguishable.


Arjun
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 1999 00:15:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:40 GMT