Re: Proposed DTD Names, Structure [Was: HTML 2.0 editing status ]

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@simplon.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 94 19:28:11 EDT
Message-id: <>
Reply-To: fielding@simplon.ICS.UCI.EDU
Precedence: bulk
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@simplon.ICS.UCI.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: Proposed DTD Names, Structure [Was: HTML 2.0 editing status ] 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)
Dan wrote:

> Proposal 1: Eliminate the HTML.Obsolete, HTML.Proposed, and HTML.Prescriptive
> 	marked sections	in the DTD -- leave the Obsolete stuff in,
> 	and take the Proposed and Prescriptive stuff out. The net effect
> 	on the grammar defined by the DTD would be nothing.

And what would become of the Proposed stuff?  Should the information
remain in Section 3 (perhaps with the addition of what was deleted from
the DTD)?  Also, what would happen if a document containing the proposed
elements is run through a parser with that DTD?

Assuming they are flagged as errors, how does one go about obtaining a
DTD which does include the proposed elements and attributes? 

I think that we should either make all the features currently in the
proposed section part of the 2.0 standard (and thus in the DTD) or
immediately start work on a 2.1 standard (containing just those additions
which are compatible with levels 1 and 2).  I prefer the former, since none
of the proposed features conflict with current practice and several can 
already be considered current practice, just not widely known.

> Proposal 2A: Keep the public identifiers as-is:
> html-0.dtd:     "+//ISBN 82-7640-037::WWW//DTD HTML Level 0//EN//2.0"
> html-1.dtd:     "+//ISBN 82-7640-037::WWW//DTD HTML Level 1//EN//2.0"
> html.dtd:       "+//ISBN 82-7640-037::WWW//DTD HTML//EN//2.0"
> Proposal 2B: Replace them with an unregisterd FPI, naming IETF as the owner:
> html-0.dtd:     "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 0//EN//2.0"
> html-1.dtd:     "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 1//EN//2.0"
> html.dtd:       "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN//2.0"
> Proposal 2C: Replace them with an registerd FPI, naming IETF as the owner.
> 	This requires that the IETF register itself somehow with ISO.
> html-0.dtd:     "+//IETF//DTD HTML Level 0//EN//2.0"
> html-1.dtd:     "+//IETF//DTD HTML Level 1//EN//2.0"
> html.dtd:       "+//IETF//DTD HTML//EN//2.0"

I say go with 2B until 2C becomes registered.

> Proposal 3: Combine html-0.dtd, html-1.dtd, html-2.dtd into one file,
> 	as per Terry's suggestion:

Yep, that would help as well -- I have a hard time finding definitions
in the split DTDs.

> We still have not decided whether
> XMP and LISTING go in the HTML 2.0 DTD or not. This way, I can
> conveniently test either case.
> If there is consensus among the WG that these should go in, or
> that they should go out, I can edit the DTD and be done with it.

I think they should be left out of the DTD (but remain in the spec),
since that would cause them to be marked as errors if someone tries
to validate such a document.  Either that or find some other way to
mark them such that warnings are generated (I can't think of any).
However, I don't really care either way, so I'll just agree with whatever
gets decided.

>>  Are we willing to say that
>>for Level 2 these elements may not be used at all?  If not,
>>let's eliminate these marked sections.  Proposed stuff should
>>fall into Level 1 or 2 or be eliminated.  
> I agree. I just wasn't willing to zap things without consensus.

All of the proposed stuff is currently Level 1.

...Roy Fielding   ICS Grad Student, University of California, Irvine  USA
    <A HREF="">About Roy</A>