Re: More syntax details in HTML 2.0?
Walter Ian Kaye (boo@PrimeNet.Com)
Wed, 14 Jun 95 22:58:07 EDT
At 07:24p 06/14/95, Peter Flynn wrote:
>Tim Pierce writes:
>
> That makes sense. Although the objections to expanding on SGML
> syntax make sense to me intellectually, I get a real screaming
> horror at the idea of describing HTML in terms of a standard whose
> definition is not as freely available as an RFC or IETF draft. If
> we want to encourage people to write conforming clients, we must
> make the standard (or at least the implementation guidelines) as
> straightforward as possible. Otherwise, people won't bother and
> will get it all wrong.
>
>So where do I find the RFC or IETF Draft on C? or Fortran? or COBOL?
>
>Tim is quite right, it would be wonderful if the ISO climbed back
>aboard the planet and made the specs available free, so people could
>actually _use_ them. It would also be wonderful if someone would write
>sufficient of an implementor's spec and place it in the public domain.
Yes... public domain C code, API or not, does no good for someone needing
to implement HTML parsing in a different language (such as AppleScript, or
Microsoft Excel's macro language). English and pseudocode would be
infinitely more useful, and provide an understanding which blindly using
"black box" code would not.
Just an AppleScripter's 2 cents...
-Walter
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #
# Walter Ian Kaye: (602) 942-6390 FoxPro/Excel Programmer; Guitarist #
# Correspond to: boo@primenet.com, boodlums@genie.com #
# BinHex files: boo@primenet.com WWW: http://www.primenet.com/~boo/ #
# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #