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
>We both know how meaningful those semantics really are though don't

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

 Paul Prescod

Received on Sunday, 11 August 1996 11:45:25 UTC