- From: Paul Prescod <papresco@technologist.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 19:34:01 -0400
- To: "Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor" <roconnor@wronski.math.uwaterloo.ca>
- CC: Scott Matthewman <scottm@danielson.co.uk>, www-html@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Russell Steven Shawn O'Connor wrote: > If we support FILENAME, then what? There are millions of possible > contextual mark up. As I understand this is the whole reason why GML was > abandoned for SGML. SGML is more powerful and configurable, but GML was also a "Generalized" (and extendible) markup language. AFAIK there is no particular fixed-tag language that SGML derives from. You are right that you can't make a language that has all of the elements that people will want. Moreover, structural tags have been so studiously ignored by browsers and even, to a certain extent, search engines that it does not make sense to standardize more without specific applications in mind. What would a UA do with: <PERSON>Paul Prescod</PERSON> <PERSON>papresco@technologist.com</PERSON> <PERSON>paul</PERSON> For these things to take off there would have to be a precise semantic and syntactic definition and probably some "suggested behaviors for browser vendors". Paul Prescod -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBM8Vw7x2mf2lcnhjDEQJnWwCeJ/yS1iYnKpEOrP7KK/qiiQeN7j0AoPFO 8ZzTgHKKenrJioseNkTQPBpS =HU/E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 11 July 1997 06:03:26 UTC