Re: Proposed DTD Names, Structure

Dave Raggett (
Wed, 7 Sep 94 06:10:42 EDT

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