- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 21:05:21 +1000
Ian Hickson wrote: > (Note that HTML1 was not an SGML application; HTML2 was retrofitted into the > SGML world for theoretical reasons, but the real world never really caught > up with that theory.) Yes, I'm aware of what HTML 1 was (Martin Bryan explains it well [1], for anyone that doesn't know) and, IMO, it was a very good decision to formalise it as SGML. However, as you say, the real world never caught on, and, sadly, probably never will (at least not in any mainstream browser). :-( > In practice, though, the reason is the same as for MathML: The XML parser > is a generic parser, the HTML parser is not. I assume you mean tag-soup parser? :-) Yes, I understand the problem. > We can change content models and add concepts like namespaces to the XML > parser easily; we can at best add new elements when it comes to the HTML > parser. Fair enough. I guess this is one reason why XHTML is so good ? the mistakes of the past with SGML/HTML won't be repeated, and progress won't be held up so much by buggy browsers. it's just a pity it's not yet supported in IE. I'm also starting to understand why you don't consider HTML an application of SGML, although I still don't like it. :-| [1] http://www.is-thought.co.uk/book/home.htm -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ http://GetFirefox.com/ Rediscover the Web http://GetThunderbird.com/ Reclaim your Inbox
Received on Friday, 8 April 2005 04:05:21 UTC