Re: Proposed DTD Names, Structure

Dave Raggett <>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 94 06:10:42 EDT
Message-id: <>
Precedence: bulk
From: Dave Raggett <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: Proposed DTD Names, Structure
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)
My views on the proposals are as follows:

> 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.

Yes - do it!

On the DTD names, I think we should push the IETF to register itself somehow
with ISO, and in the meantime adopt an unregisterd FPI, naming IETF as the
owner, e.g. html.dtd: "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN//2.0"

Like Terry, I would much prefer a single file for the 2.0 DTD. It would
still be much simpler than my HTML+ DTD!  I also like the suggestion that
we put together an SGML Open style catalog.

BTW I am making good progress, working with CERN, on implementing a testbed
browser for the HTML 3.0 spec. We would like to demonstrate this at the
Web conference in October.
Best wishes,

Dave Raggett

Hewlett Packard Laboratories              email:
Filton Road                               tel:   +44 272 228046
Stoke Gifford                             fax:   +44 272 228003
Bristol BS12 6QZ
United Kingdom