> The semantics of the current HTML 3 proposal seem clear enough
Yes, they "seem" clear enough, and maybe after a few years we will
find out that they are. And maybe not. If we adopt a new model,
that's something that we will all have to find out. Some people find
that kind of adventure interesting. Some of the rest of us who are
concerned primarily with making documents available don't find it so
interesting.
Personally, I rather like the idea of going with a table model in
which the semantics have already had several years to work themselves
out. A model that has already been worked with by a few thousand
people to produce a few million pages. A model that already has some
industrial-strength commercial applications from companies like
Interleaf and Frame and ArborText and SoftQuad.
> Given, that the philosophy of HTML is to keep it simple, and that
> significant numbers of people will want to continue to edit HTML
> directly, why should we complicate HTML for the sake of minor
> simplifications to CALS filters?
Sorry, I don't see the current 3.0 model as being significantly
simpler than the one that Paul is proposing.
Jon
========================================================================
Jon Bosak, Novell Corporate Publishing Services jb@novell.com
2180 Fortune Drive, San Jose, CA 95131 Fax: 408 577 5020
A sponsor of the Davenport Group (ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/davenport/)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Library is a sphere whose consummate center is any hexagon, and
whose circumference is inaccessible. -- Jorge Luis Borges
========================================================================