Re: rethinking the HTML DTD.
Dan Connolly (connolly@pixel.convex.com)
Tue, 14 Jul 92 14:54:58 CDT
Message-Id: <9207141954.AA20257@pixel.convex.com>
To: davis@willow.tc.cornell.edu (Jim Davis)
Cc: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: rethinking the HTML DTD.
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Jul 92 15:48:32 EDT."
<9207141948.AA04895@willow.tc.cornell.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 14:54:58 CDT
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@pixel.convex.com>
>As far as I can tell the richtext in RFC1143 is kind of a quick
>and dirty hack. I had no experience with the microsoft standard
>so of course I cant compare it but the rfc1143 richtext looks
>like a step backwards from html even.
>
In what way? This is exactly the point of my message: that HTML
is nothing more than rtf1143 RichText plus anchors. I'd like
to hear the flip side of the argument.
>is there an online definition of RTF?
I have an old (and in my opinion, poorly written) RTF
spec from a Microsoft programming journal. There's another
thing often called Rich_Text_Format_Specs.hqx (see archie
for FTP site nearest you), but it has at least one
inaccuracy (regarding newlines) and I don't know where it came from.
The best work I've seen on RTF is:
---------------------
.NH
Distribution and Update Availability
.LP
The RTF
distribution may be freely circulated and is available for
anonymous FTP access under the
.I ~ftp/pub
directory on host
.I ftp.primate.wisc.edu .
Updates appear there as they become available.
.LP
If you do not have FTP access, send requests to the address
.I software@primate.wisc.edu .
Bug reports, questions, suggestions and comments may be sent to
this address as well.
---------------------
by:
Paul DuBois
dubois@primate.wisc.edu
Have at it.
Dan