- 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