- From: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
- Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 12:29:13 GMT
- To: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
- CC: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca, kmc@harlequin.com, marc@ckm.ucsf.edu, www-style@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
>Momentum will keep pushing HTML down that path, but HTML is already down >that path. HTML is defined as a set of GIs and attributes (a DTD!) and will >probably always be. That's why there is a parallel W3C development track for >Generic SGML on the Web. How is "HTML with user-defined GIs" substantially >different than "basic SGML?" Wouldn't it be redundant to have both? That's precisely my point. HTML is fine, and should probably stick around for some time to come, but "minimal+" SGML is more important, and a (backwardly compatible) superset in terms of functionality. >>Parsing is the least of our worries, which is what I was saying. I wa >>also saying that anything that can attach semantics to attributes can >>do the same thing with GI's, in a probably simpler manner. > >But the HTML GI's do not need to have semantics attached to them. They >already have them. CLASSes are supposed to be refinements of those >semantics, not new ones altogether. We both know how meaningful those semantics really are though don't we?
Received on Sunday, 11 August 1996 08:31:51 UTC