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

Daniel W. Connolly (
Wed, 7 Sep 94 13:17:18 EDT

In message <199409071701.KAA29137@rock>, Terry Allen writes:
>> Dan's well thought out 3-dtd
>solution was meant to address the issue of compliance at various
>levels, and merging everything into one large dtd does not seem to
>address this issue.
>It doesn't change the issue, it only puts everything in one place.
>There will still be three levels, but you'll have to set them by
>editing the INCLUDE/IGNORE keywords at two points within the DTD.

Ack! No! Don't make folks edit the DTD!

The prologue:

<!DOCTYPE HTML "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 1//2.0">

currently invokes the level 1 dtd via that public identifier. It
should stay that way. For example, we could say that the public
text identifier "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 1//2.0" refers to:

<!ENTITY % html.dtd "-//IETF//DTD HTML//2.0">

(which might be stored in a file called html-1.dtd)
and similarly "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 0//2.0" refers to:

<!ENTITY % html.dtd "-//IETF//DTD HTML//2.0">

and finally "-//IETF//DTD HTML//2.0" and "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 2//2.0"
refer to the combination of the current html-0.dtd,
html-1.dtd, and html.dtd, with marked sections for HTML.Level1 and
HTML.Level2 features.