re: minimal HTML

"James (Eric) Tilton" <>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 15:57:13 -0800 (PST)
From: "James (Eric) Tilton" <>
Sender: "James (Eric) Tilton" <>
Reply-To: "James (Eric) Tilton" <>
Subject: re: minimal HTML
In-reply-to: <>
Message-id: <Pine.3.88.9401071504.A9903-0100000@jupiter>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Length: 1281
On Sat, 8 Jan 1994, Bert Bos wrote:

> I'm not sure... On the one hand it might simplify writing parsers for
> HTML if no tags are omitted. On the other hand these tags are not
> really meant for people to use. They are hooks for an SGML parser or
> (in the jargon of grammar writers) "nonterminals" that do not show up
> in the final surface structure.

Not having written a parser for HTML, I'm shooting a bit in the dark 
here, but it seems to me that promoting more "legitimate" HTML (w/ <HTML> 
tags, et al) is a smart move.  After all, that's what's in the 
specification -- and while laxness is often allowed by the browsers, how 
can we be sure the browsers will always be lax in the same ways?  It 
seems that it would be better to be anal :), and have legal HTML floating 
around instead of quasi-legal HTML.

This would probably be a good job for some sort of prettifying filter for 
HTML, that would take someone's "lax" code and add the appropriate extra 


/ (James) Eric Tilton, Student AND Student Liaison, WITS               \
\ Class of '95 - CS/Hist  -- Internet -         /
<a href="">ObHyPlan!</a>, chock fulla
<a href="">Fun Stuff!</a>