- From: Scott E. Preece <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:55:18 -0600
- To: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
- CC: msftrncs@htcnet.com, www-style@w3.org
From: papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca | | At 05:18 PM 11/20/96 -0600, Carl Morris wrote: | >| Yes. POEM tags have extra benefits over <div class=poem>. | >| * they are more compact to type and download. | > | >It would require a DTD, a DTD is not compact to type and download. | | That isn't the case. See http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-xml-961114.html | section 3.2 DTDs are no longer required. --- Um, XML is "a dialect of SGML" - it is not all of SGML. It still seems to me that many of the key benefits of SGML do require a DTD. On the other hand, DTDs *are* reasonably compact and they are eminently sharable, so I don't really see the need for a DTD as a problem. I still expect a future that includes good, widely-used SGML browsers and a number of DTDs that are used for large parts of the content-oriented material on the Web. For instance, I expect that the DocBook DTD would be used by a lot of authors, once effective access to DocBook tagged material was commonly available in browsers. Most authors are *not* going to have any interest in designing their own DTDs, but many are going to want to use DTDs much richer than HTML and with large enough user communities to support publishing of author aids and training materials. It's still the case that standard DTDs are required if we are to get the best use out of indexing/search systems, since the best searching requires some awareness of the semantics of the data, which means the indexer or the search engine must know something about the "meaning" of the tags it finds. scott --- scott preece motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801 phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550 internet mail: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com scott --
Received on Thursday, 21 November 1996 09:55:41 UTC