Re: Proposed DTD Names, Structure [Was: HTML 2.0 editing status ]
yuri@sq.com (Yuri Rubinsky)
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 94 11:26:59 EDT
Message-id: <m0qilGU-000ES4C@sq.com>
Reply-To: yuri@sq.com
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: yuri@sq.com (Yuri Rubinsky)
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)
Dan writes:
> Ack! No! Don't make folks edit the DTD!
>
Murray writes:
> Good solution.
And I agree with them both.
I think packaging this up with the right prose, and just a suggestion
that this can be a "hands-off", kind of makefile approach, makes it
considerably simpler.
People must believe they don't need to understand nested marked sections
inorder to use HTML. And nothing we do -- including how we present this
stuff at conferences and elsewhere -- must make it seem as if a bunch of
people let SGML go to their heads and they succeeded in making something
very simple very complicated.
It was clear at the May conference that people badly want and need the
clear statement of what's what that HTML 2.0 gives, and also the added
capability that 3.0 will bring; but that doesn't necessarily mean they're
willing to give up brain cells to understand how these things work.
So far I think we've got a very good solution which answers their needs
and allows people who want to understand more a straightforward, standardized
way of reading their way around the material -- at any deptth they want to
achieve.
Yuri