Obsolete Elements [Was: HTML 2.0 Call for Review ]

• Mail folder: html-archive
• Next message: Terry Allen: "Re: Levels"
• Previous message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Levels"
• Reply: Peter Flynn: "Re: Obsolete Elements [Was: HTML 2.0 Call for Review ]"

Message-id: <9406102008.AA08103@ulua.hal.com>
To: html-ig@oclc.org
Subject: Obsolete Elements [Was: HTML 2.0 Call for Review ]
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Jun 1994 13:25:11 -0000."
             <9406061225.AA11520@dragget.hpl.hp.com> 
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 15:08:28 -0500
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
Content-Length: 611

In message <9406061225.AA11520@dragget.hpl.hp.com>, Dave Raggett writes:
>
>    o   <!ENTITY % pre "PRE | XMP | LISTING">
>
>Doesn't this make it hard to test for obsolete elements with SGMLS?
>I would prefer to see them defined in a marked section so that
>its easy to switch obsolete elements in/out of the DTD for testing.

Good idea.

What's the general consensus out there about obsolete elements?

The only ones I know of are XMP and LISTING.

Should we even mess with putting them in the DTD? Or should we just
stick a note in the spec about how implementations are encouraged
to include this hack?

Dan