Re: Enhancements for HTML 2.1

Joe English (
Sat, 18 Mar 1995 23:41:45 PST

Jon_Bosak@Novell.COM wrote:

> Liam Quin <> writes:
> | Perhaps we should start listing the things that are and are not agreed?
> | Tables - must have, work still to do
> | Styles - no consensus yet
> | Footnotes - OK
> | HyTime links - no consensus reached
> | Client-side scripting - no proposal yet
> | Full SGML in the client - no proposal yet
> | Unicode support - no consensus reached
> | FIG extension - OK
> | client side image map - no consensus reached

Please add:

DIV element - OK
ID attribute on all elements - OK

At least nobody's yet objected to these two.

CLASS attribute on all elements - ???
no objections, but there may still be disagreement
on whether CLASS should have predefinable semantics or not;
(I believe it should not, though a list of suggested values
for various elements a la link relations is a good idea.)

> I don't see any basic disagreement here, just the very strong
> suspicion on my part that the issues you've listed aren't going to get
> completely resolved in the next few weeks, whereas tables can be and
> should be. Am I alone in this suspicion? Does everyone think that
> the open issues in Lee's list have all been discussed thoroughly and
> can be wrapped up as quickly as tables can?

For tables, the basic content model seems pretty solid.
There was a question about whether <TH> cells should be
allowed anywhere in a <TR>; I think this was resolved.
There may be questions about the formatting attributes,
wrt compatibility with other table models, ICADD in
particular. Is the colspec attribute OK?

<FIG> -- the content model needs to be fixed to eliminate
the pernicious mixed content [*], but other than that
I believe it's OK. The question of how to add client-side
image maps is still open, but <FIG> is flexible enough
to easily accomodate extensions.

Footnotes -- OK, but should there be a separate FN element,
or should these be specified with <NOTE ROLE=footnote>?
(I say the FN element should be reintroduced.)

Universal ID attributes -- clearly OK.

DIV element -- I believe there was consensus on this.
Other proposals included: multiple ranked <DIVn> elements;
requiring an <Hn> as the first element in any division;
separate recursive <DIV> and <SECT> elements, where <DIV>
was free-form and <SECT> required a heading; and
something really heinous-looking in the old HTML+ DTD :-)

--Joe English

[*] attribution: Terry Allen