- From: Mike Wexler <mwexler@frame.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 23:36:53 -0800
- To: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
> Once upon a time Daniel W. Connolly shaped the electrons to say... > >If the extension documentation was accompanied by a DTD, the validation > >systems could stay up-to-date trivially. > > This is something I do feel needs to be addressed. I don't think there is > any problem with vendor extensions, but I do believe the vendor is then > responsible to generate a DTD to cover them. Each each vendor has a DTD and a corresponding doctype, the multivendor problem has a relatively easy solution. The content negotiation. The browser says (I accept pages that are in HTML 2, HTML 3, NS-HTML 2.0, or MSIE-HTML 3.17.2B-1996. The server can then supply a page in the proper form of HTML. Server side includes and ifdefs can be used to keep from having N copies of each document. Also if every vendor provides DTDs, the jobs of standards groups becomes easier. At least in some cases it can be just a matter of reconciling the different DTDs (who cares what the page actually looks like :-).
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 1996 02:40:37 UTC