Re: Proposed DTD Names, Structure [Was: HTML 2.0 editing status ]
Eduardo.Gutentag@Eng.Sun.COM (Eduardo Gutentag)
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 94 12:30:57 EDT
Message-id: <9409071629.AA16697@rug.Eng.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: Eduardo.Gutentag@Eng.Sun.COM
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Eduardo.Gutentag@Eng.Sun.COM (Eduardo Gutentag)
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-wg@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed DTD Names, Structure [Was: HTML 2.0 editing status ]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)
>
> Proposal 1: Eliminate the HTML.Obsolete, HTML.Proposed, and HTML.Prescriptive
> marked sections in the DTD -- leave the Obsolete stuff in,
Yes - but making sure its usage is deprecated
> and take the Proposed and Prescriptive stuff out. The net effect
> on the grammar defined by the DTD would be nothing.
yes
>
>
> Proposal 2A: Keep the public identifiers as-is:
> html-0.dtd: "+//ISBN 82-7640-037::WWW//DTD HTML Level 0//EN//2.0"
> html-1.dtd: "+//ISBN 82-7640-037::WWW//DTD HTML Level 1//EN//2.0"
> html.dtd: "+//ISBN 82-7640-037::WWW//DTD HTML//EN//2.0"
>
> Proposal 2B: Replace them with an unregisterd FPI, naming IETF as the owner:
> html-0.dtd: "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 0//EN//2.0"
> html-1.dtd: "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 1//EN//2.0"
> html.dtd: "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN//2.0"
>
> Proposal 2C: Replace them with an registerd FPI, naming IETF as the owner.
> This requires that the IETF register itself somehow with ISO.
> html-0.dtd: "+//IETF//DTD HTML Level 0//EN//2.0"
> html-1.dtd: "+//IETF//DTD HTML Level 1//EN//2.0"
> html.dtd: "+//IETF//DTD HTML//EN//2.0"
>
2C if IETF does register itself, 2B otherwise
>
> Proposal 3: Combine html-0.dtd, html-1.dtd, html-2.dtd into one file,
> as per Terry's suggestion:
> >My solution to the three-DTD problem is to fold -1 and .
> >into -0, as marked sections, with the basic content models
> >supplied with empty parameter entities that expand within
> >those marked sections. Then there's only one file named
> >.dtd, and the IGNORE/INCLUDE operations are simple. Example
> >on request.
>
Well, the majority seems to favor Terry's suggestion, and I can see
why; however, if I'm not mistaken, Dan's well thought out 3-dtd
solution was meant to address the issue of compliance at various
levels, and merging everything into one large dtd does not seem to
address this issue.
*******************************************************************************
Eduardo Gutentag Sun Microsystems Inc (SunSoft)
AnswerBook Publishing/Online Information
e-mail: eduardo@eng.Sun.COM
Phone: (415) 336-6916
fax: (415) 336-4449 (e-mail notification please)
2550 Garcia Ave, MTV19-106, Mountain View, CA, 94043-1100
*******************************************************************************