Re: HTML 2.0 DTD

Terry Allen (
Fri, 7 Jul 95 18:10:09 EDT

>Oops! Good catch. Sigh... I *really* don't want to spin another
draft of the 2.0 spec. Would anybody mind if we left this bug
in there?

Unless there's a chance to make minor editorial changes before the
document is finished, yes. This is indeed a good catch, and really
is (or should have been) part of the change to HEAD that Lee suggested.
We don't want to sanction elements being included in TITLE (and
possibly later other contentful elements in HEAD, if we go that way).

>Yes, but someone (Paul Grosso?) suggested that #PCDATA makes folks
think that one or more characters is required, whereas (#PCDATA)*
tells folks that zero characters is a possibility.

I really don't care; the two are equivalent, but people actually
reading the DTD (which it seems very few do) ought to know about this
detail; we don't need to gussy up the content models to help them.
But don't change it on account of me ...


Terry Allen  (   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
Editor, Digital Media Group    101 Morris St.
			       Sebastopol, Calif., 95472

A Davenport Group sponsor. For information on the Davenport Group see or