> I just got the 13 March 95 draft HTML 3 DTD,
> and much to my dismay saw that <MARK> has been
> dropped "on advice from SGML Open".
>
> What did SGML Open say was wrong with <MARK>?
Nevermind; I just saw Dave's note on www-html about this.
To paraphrase, the main objection to <MARK> was that
diverging from a strictly tree-based markup makes
display optimization difficult. A secondary objection
was that DTD designers who have used such elements usually
end up removing them, since users and implementors
had trouble with them.
My reply to these objections is on www-html.
> Did they offer a useable alternative?
Answer: no.
--Joe English
joe@trystero.art.com
jenglish@crl.com