> You cannot make the installed base of HTML documents go away. Vendors
> cannot responsibly remove features or break existing documents.
>
> The OL and UL idioms are widely accepted and understood. The cost
> of supporting them at this point is minimal. The cost of removing
> them would be tremendous, and to what benefit?
Marked sections have been added to the DTD at least in order
to rearrange things keeping compatibility with the former documents.
I believe lists are exactly the place for a marked sections
use.
> <ul> is easier to type than <list unordered>. It costs less network
> bandwidth. It's here today and it works.
Type ? Do you *really* think people will always type such
things ? Some HTML wysiwyg editors are in the pipe and in a close
future, HTML redactors will need less than a minimal HTML knowledge...
I can't accept the bandwidth argument. You are NOT running
after the lost byte. Otherwise, think about leaving immediately
HTML and SGML and looking at a binary compressed format.
> Because we need to display it interactively. Both of those DTDs
> were considered (I believe).
Euromath dtd is interactively displayed since 1993...
> > How can you convince LaTeX users that their zillions of formulas
> > are convertible into HTML easy-going ????
>
> We will write tools.
In html-wg, I presume ?
Seriously, we already use thousands of filters ! It's a so
difficult thing that some companies make a lot of bizness with that
kind of translations !
> But keep in mind that LaTeX has a different set of design constraints
> from those of HTML -- LaTeX is for beatifully typset books, and HTML,
> while it may be printed, MUST be processed interactively.
LaTeX is a markup language for content AND restitution informations.
SGML does not deal with restitution but LaTeX mathematical formulas are
structured AND human-readable.
> But HTML is part of a distributed information system. Security and
> reliability are an integral part of the system. Some applications will
> require the ability to check the integrity of links. An MD5 attribute
> allows applications to do that. This mechanism should be refined and
> inhanced (e.g. to incorporate the information such as the DN attribute
> required by S-HTTP), not eliminated.
> There is nothing in the SGML standard that specifies that SGML
> document must represent "truth, beauty, and eternal understanding"
> nor that representing information about physical characteristics
> and layout are illegal.
>
> On the other hand, practitioners in the field of technical documentation
> have learned that documents are more reusable and long-lived if the
> content is separated from the presentation.
Oh yes !
> Keep in mind, though, that HTML is not used exclusively for technical
> documentation -- it's used for advertising, catalogs, informal
> communication, and lots of short-lived information.
Of course. But you can build a wonderful nice-looking restitution
model on pure sgml instance... Let me remind you taht some newspapers do it
around the world...
> The author of the HTML 3.0 draft has weighed quite of evidence
> carefully, and found a balance that he believes will support a wider
> variety of distributed information applications on the web.
> I think the draft needs some significant work, but it is in the
> right direction.
The draft shows a set of directions; I mean it keeps too
much old fashion stuff. I do believe HTML needs a good dust removal.
Then we could select the right direction in this set.
</Daniel>