- From: Mary Holstege <holstege@athena.kset.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:29:39 -0700
- To: www-html@w3.org
I don't understand the terrible resistance to allowing (encouraging) HTML files to contain SGML prologues and using the power implied by the existence of that to achieve useful results. Most of my serious HTML *already* has a <!DOCTYPE section; I just have to run everything through SPAM before I put it out. The standard HTML DTD can contain some of the popular notations; if you want to do anything funky, you have to embed some funky syntax. OK. And the problem with this is...? Why is a concept that comes from SGML always presumed "too hard" but some random half-backed hack considered "easy enough for the masses"? Why is "<!--#include" easy enough for the masses to understand, but "<!ENTITY foo SYSTEM" is too hard? Why is long distance naming in "<A NAME=foo>...<A HREF="#foo">" easy enough for the masses to master but that in "<!ENTITY foo...>...&foo;" too hard? Why is "// <!-- ... // -->" easy enough for the masses to understand but "<![ CDATA [...]]>" too hard? Why do we have to put up with people inventing "<!--XXX IFDEF FOO-->...<!--XXX ENDIF-->" but refusing to encourage "<![ %FOO; [ ...]]>" which does the job just as well, and can be processed by standard tools? I think it's time to fish or cut bait: if HTML is to be an SGML application, use the features of SGML that are required to make it workable. There is much I would have changed about SGML if I had been its inventor, but the fact is that it is here, it has solutions to a lot of these problems, and if HTML is an SGML application a lot of nice tools can be used to handle it. Tracking changes from version to version of HTML with these tools becomes a matter of dropping in a new DTD instead of hacking up the tool to understand the siginifance of some new semantics embedded in comments or some special handling required for the FOOBAR element. It is very clear to me that we cannot go much further without putting (allowing, defaulting, supporting) the SGML prologue into HTML. In particular: NOTATION could be used quite nicely for both SCRIPT and MATH (NOTATION=TeX, anyone?) It would allow for direct experimentation with other scripting notations. Parameter ENTITYs (particularly if you support URL SYSTEM identifiers) allows you to very neatly encapsulate common boilerplate or decorations and ease maintenance. While we're at it, can't we at least have a sentence somewhere official encouraging support of processing instruction syntax instead of random comment hackery? Please? -- Mary Holstege@kset.com Mary Holstege, PhD Chief Technologist, Online Engineering KnowledgeSet Corporation 555 Ellis Street Tel: (415) 254-5452 Mountain View, CA 94043 FAX: (415) 254-5451
Received on Tuesday, 30 July 1996 12:32:21 UTC