I think that you mean "...not all _HTML user agents_ are
capable of ignoring the SGML standard."
> >
> > to which Gavin suggests the change
> >
> > When the above conflicts with the SGML standard, the SGML standard
> > may be ignored. Note, however, that not all HTML applications are
> > capable of ignoring the SGML standard, and that strict conformance
> > may be required in the future.
>
> I would accept "may be required for future levels of HTML".
I would not accept that. And again, I think it is _HTML user agents_
that are being discussed, not HTML applications.
>
> > The old language was:
> >
> > 2.5 Understanding HTML and SGML
> >
> > HTML is an application of ISO Standard 8879:1986 -
> > Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML). SGML is a
> > system for defining structured document types, and
> > markup languages to represent instances of those
> > document types. The SGML declaration for HTML is given
> > in Section 5.1. It is implicit among HTML user agents.
> >
> > If the HTML specification and SGML standard conflict,
> > the SGML standard is definitive.
> >
> > and that is the only approach I can support. HTML is defined as
> > an application of SGML; we cannot ignore the SGML standard when we
> > choose. It's that second para, saying that the SGML standard is
> > definitive, that is still needed. The wording about how some HTML
> > apps can't ignore HTML is kinda odd considering almost all of them do.
>
> On the contrary -- we can and do ignore the SGML standard with a great
> deal of regularity and for many good reasons. That is life! No user agent
> is required to be an SGML application, and those applications are quite
> capable of ignoring the SGML standard (sometimes in an unfortunate way).
You may choose to ignore the SGML standard. That is your right.
User agents are free to do whatever they want, this
working group is not responsible for creating a spec
for HTML user agents.
However, this working group has previously agreed that
"HTML is an application of ISO Standard 8879:1986 -
Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML).
As far as I know, this working group has not rescinded
that agreement -- perhaps the chair could correct me
if I am wrong.
Now, SGML is like virginity in as much as an application
can't be a little bit not SGML. It is SGML or it ain't.
This working group also agreed on the language:
"If the HTML specification and SGML standard conflict,
the SGML standard is definitive."
I respectfully submit that this working group has not
authorized the removal of that wording and that it
should remain intact.
>
> > What's at issue here is how browsers are to do error recovery;
> > let's not say we're defining an SGML app and then saying the SGML
> > standard isn't normative for SGML apps.
>
> We are not defining *just* an SGML app. We are defining a media type
> that is both SGML-conformant and a reasonable proximity to what people
> were calling "text/html" back in June of last year. That is why we
> are in an IETF WG instead of an SGML Open group.
Let's not speculate too much on why we are an IETF Working Group.
> User agents can (and in some cases, should) bend the rules of SGML
> in order to provide maximally robust interface to the user. Quite frankly,
> this is an area that Internet people have had more experience with than
> SGML people, and I think SGML folks should learn from it just like we
> have learned the benefits of formally-structured documents.
User agents can do whatever they like -- no problem.
I don't think that it will prove helpful at all to divide
the working group into camps which are at odds with each other.
> On the Internet, shit happens on a regular basis -- a standard which
> is not capable of coping with that (and in a consistant manner) is not
> worthy of becoming an Internet standard.
I'm not sure what this means, but I don't think that
it adds a lot to the discussion.
>
>
> ....Roy T. Fielding Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
> <fielding@ics.uci.edu>
> <URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/dir/grad/Software/fielding>
Murray