Re: Generic Markup

At 12:29 PM 8/11/96 GMT, Gavin Nicol wrote:
>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.

So that's what the SGML ERB is for. How does this relate to discussions of
HTML and HTML CLASSes?
 
>We both know how meaningful those semantics really are though don't
>we?

Better than nothing. =) I'm only half kidding. Without a concrete proposal
for a mechanism to attach semantics to new elements (i.e. archforms, DSSSL,
CSS+), it's the "best we've got." My understanding is that the SGML ERB will
come up with that proposal. (although I'd love to know their predicted time
frames...)

 Paul Prescod