Re: Proposed DTD Names, Structure [Was: HTML 2.0 editing status ]
Murray Maloney <murray@sco.COM>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 94 09:39:50 EDT
Message-id: <9409080926.aa06360@dali.scocan.sco.COM>
Reply-To: murray@sco.COM
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Murray Maloney <murray@sco.COM>
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)
Good solution.
>
> In message <199409071701.KAA29137@rock>, Terry Allen writes:
> >> 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.
> >
> >It doesn't change the issue, it only puts everything in one place.
> >There will still be three levels, but you'll have to set them by
> >editing the INCLUDE/IGNORE keywords at two points within the DTD.
>
> Ack! No! Don't make folks edit the DTD!
>
> The prologue:
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 1//2.0">
>
> currently invokes the level 1 dtd via that public identifier. It
> should stay that way. For example, we could say that the public
> text identifier "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 1//2.0" refers to:
>
> <!ENTITY % HTML.Level2 "IGNORE">
> <!ENTITY % html.dtd "-//IETF//DTD HTML//2.0">
>
> (which might be stored in a file called html-1.dtd)
> and similarly "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 0//2.0" refers to:
>
> <!ENTITY % HTML.Level1 "IGNORE">
> <!ENTITY % HTML.Level2 "IGNORE">
> <!ENTITY % html.dtd "-//IETF//DTD HTML//2.0">
>
> and finally "-//IETF//DTD HTML//2.0" and "-//IETF//DTD HTML Level 2//2.0"
> refer to the combination of the current html-0.dtd,
> html-1.dtd, and html.dtd, with marked sections for HTML.Level1 and
> HTML.Level2 features.
>
> Dan