W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1996

Re: Generic Markup [was:Re: deprecated tags in Wilbur & Cougar]

From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 12:29:13 GMT
Message-Id: <199608111229.MAA09495@wiley.EBT.COM>
To: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
CC: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca, kmc@harlequin.com, marc@ckm.ucsf.edu, www-style@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
>Momentum will keep pushing HTML down that path, but HTML is already down
>that path. HTML is defined as a set of GIs and attributes (a DTD!) and will
>probably always be. That's why there is a parallel W3C development track for
>Generic SGML on the Web. How is "HTML with user-defined GIs" substantially
>different than "basic SGML?" Wouldn't it be redundant to have both?

That's precisely my point. HTML is fine, and should probably stick
around for some time to come, but "minimal+" SGML is more important,
and a (backwardly compatible) superset in terms of functionality.
 
>>Parsing is the least of our worries, which is what I was saying. I wa
>>also saying that anything that can attach semantics to attributes can
>>do the same thing with GI's, in a probably simpler manner.
> 
>But the HTML GI's do not need to have semantics attached to them. They
>already have them. CLASSes are supposed to be refinements of those
>semantics, not new ones altogether.

We both know how meaningful those semantics really are though don't
we?
Received on Sunday, 11 August 1996 08:31:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:45 GMT