Re: rethinking the HTML DTD.

Dan Connolly <>
Message-id: <>
To: (Jim Davis)
Subject: Re: rethinking the HTML DTD. 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Jul 92 15:48:32 EDT."
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 92 14:54:58 CDT
From: Dan Connolly <>

>As far as I can tell the richtext in RFC1143 is kind of a quick
>and dirty hack.  I had no experience with the microsoft standard
>so of course I cant compare it but the rfc1143 richtext looks
>like a step backwards from html even.
In what way? This is exactly the point of my message: that HTML
is nothing more than rtf1143 RichText plus anchors. I'd like
to hear the flip side of the argument.

>is there an online definition of RTF?

I have an old (and in my opinion, poorly written) RTF
spec from a Microsoft programming journal. There's another
thing often called Rich_Text_Format_Specs.hqx (see archie
for FTP site nearest you), but it has at least one
inaccuracy (regarding newlines) and I don't know where it came from.

The best work I've seen on RTF is:
Distribution and Update Availability
distribution may be freely circulated and is available for
anonymous FTP access under the
.I ~ftp/pub
directory on host
.I .
Updates appear there as they become available.
If you do not have FTP access, send requests to the address
.I .
Bug reports, questions, suggestions and comments may be sent to
this address as well.

Paul DuBois

Have at it.