- From: (unknown charset) David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 16:39:40 -0700
- To: (unknown charset) "Ka-Ping Yee" <kpyee@aw.sgi.com>
- Cc: (unknown charset) <www-html@w3.org>
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> (If you would rather throw SGML out the window, that is another
issue.)
>
> Keep in mind that SGML compliance is not just some kind of pointless
> dance or an entirely academic endeavour. It is tangibly useful for
> documents to be valid SGML. I think that more and more people will
> demand a level of confidence in document integrity (which we are
> currently lacking) that validity can provide, especially as HTML
> and its applications become more complex.
I don't argue for throwing SGML out the window. But neither should it
be considered a stone tablet sent from God. The idea that a language
can be barred from evolution should remain in the realm of French
jokes. It seems to me that, conceptually, a script is the type of
content CDATA should be appropriate for, and ease of parsing aside, I
don't see the logic of the first ETAGO as a delimiter.
> I can see the value of minimalism. But in this case, the disruption
> is too great. The script is dangerous to drop in the middle of HTML
> in the first place, and it needs better protection, so to speak.
This reminds me of arguments for state-sponsored gambling (yeah, I
know, voters tend to approve state-sponsored gambling). If scripts are
dangerous, perhaps it is wrong to condone them at all.
David Perrell
BTW, I find it interesting that the use of marked sections was
initially presented as a possible solution to the backward
compatibility issue (WD-script-960228)
<http://activex.adsp.or.jp/japanese/specs/WD-SCRIPT.html>
Received on Monday, 29 July 1996 19:43:56 UTC