On Wed, 14 Jun 1995, Christophe ESPERT wrote:
[...]
> It would really be a loss of time to rewrite all that is already in the
> SGML standard regarding lexical and syntactical issues and also a loss of
> time to write HTML parsers. It is easier to learn how to use an already
> existing API to an SGML parser.
The very real problem with re-use is that many commercial developers
cannot take the risk associated with using public domain code. In
general, when code is placed in the public domain or made 'freely'
usable, no-one actually assumes responsiblity for certification that
there are no encumberances on the code. That leaves anyone who
contaminates their development process by use of such code exposed
if there is a subsequent claim against the code.
>From a technical perspective, the organization re-using code for
commercial product purposes subsumes responsiblity for insuring that
the code correctly parses HTML/SGML and therefore still needs to
understand the lexical requirements.
Therefore, I add my encouragement to the proposal that a document
be produced, informational RFC, etc. which describes the details.
If we had (we don't) time, a bunch of the historical user agents
guidance could move out of the standard as well.
FINALLY ... a small change to the HTML 2.0 draft ... it seems to
me that a critical element missing is a formal specification of
exactly where the DTD should be obtained from when it IS specified
with an HTML document. This requires a network oriented solution
such that an SGML user agent which wants to use the DTD to control
parsing of the HTML document can find the thing without magic.
Dave Morris