Toward Closure on HTML
"Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 02:12:29 --100
Message-id: <9404050002.AA16811@ulua.hal.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Toward Closure on HTML
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----- =_aaaaaaaaaa0"
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----- =_aaaaaaaaaa0"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Length: 35748
------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <16806.765504133.1@ulua>
In response to several messages/articles regarding
* a call for a published HTML standard
* ways to center/format documents
* blank lines in stead of <p>
I have finally collected many of my thoughts on all this...
------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----- =_aaaaaaaaaa1"
Content-ID: <16806.765504133.2@ulua>
------- =_aaaaaaaaaa1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <16806.765504133.3@ulua>
Toward Closure on HTML
TOWARD CLOSURE ON HTML
Version: $Id: html-direction.html,v 1.2 1994/04/04 23:59:21 connolly Exp $
Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@hal.com>
When I began looking at HTML and WWW, it was difficult to tell exactly what
HTML was, so I tried to develop a specification. That spec apparently hasn't
solved much :-{ It failed to address a number of features essential to the
successful deployment of HTML.
But HTML is a couple years older now, and perhaps now we're in a position to
see the majority of the issues clearly now. It has been suggested (see
heretical suggestion[1]) that now is the time to take the current practice
and capture it in a specification.
The Purpose of HTML
If we take a step back and look at the purpose and requirements and such for
HTML, I'd say the purpose of HTML is: to promote computer mediated
communication between parties on the internet by representing information in
terms of available hypermedia technology.
The idea is that I use the tools available on my box to capture my ideas at
a fairly high level, so that you can use the tools on your box to
filter/navigate/display the ideas. And even though your tools and my tools
are not exactly the same, there's a high degree of confidence that the ideas
get through in-tact.
So to me, the idea of deploying specialized HTML editors on all the various
platforms makes HTML no better than RTF or PostScript -- the data is tied to
the supporting code. This is not to discourage the development of
specialized HTML tools, but to encourage interoperability between existing
tools (MS Word, FrameMaker, emacs...) and HTML applications, and to
discourage "creeping featurism" in HTML.
The Goals of an HTML Specification
The goal of any HTML specification should be to promote that confidence in
the fidelity of communications using HTML. This means:
making it clear to authors what idioms are available to express their
ideas
making it clear to implementors how to interpret the HTML format so that
authors' ideas will be represented faithfully
keeping HTML simple enough that it can be implemented using readily
available technology and processed interactively
making HTML expressive enough that it can represent a useful majority of
the contemporary communications idioms in this community
making some allowance for expressing idioms not captured by the
specification
addressing relavent interoperability issues with other applications and
technologies
HTML Architecture: SGML
From HyperText Mark-up Language[2]:
The WWW[3] system uses marked up text to represent a hypertext docu
ment for transmision over the network. The hypertext markup language
is an SGML[4] format.
The costs and benefits of basing using SGML to define HTML have been
discussed at great length. Simplifications have been suggested (see, for
example, A thought on implementation...[5] and responses). But at this
point, it appears that there is a clear requirement that an HTML document
shall be a conforming SGML document[6].
The benefits of using SGML to define HTML include:
Given a formal definition of HTML in SGML (i.e. an html DTD[7]), the
question of whether a document conforms to that definition can be
determined by machine (e.g. by the SGMLs software package[8], or by
various interactive SGML editing tools). This allows authors a certain
degree of confidence that they have prepared a well-formed document, and
supports goal #1.
The SGML standard, combined with a DTD for HTML, defines an abstract
parsing model for reducing an SGML document in source form to an abstract
representation called the Entity Structure Information Set. This provides
a basis for a common interpretation of HTML documents, in support of goal
#2.
SGML is designed for document interchange, and many vendors have seen the
value in supporting SGML as an interchange option. This supports goal #6.
The costs of using SGML to define HTML include:
The SGML standard is an extremely dense document. It is not designed for
easy reading. SGML documents, on the other hand, are largely transparent.
But not completely. It is quite common to browse a number of SGML
documents and reach intuitive conclusions that are inconsitent with the
standard. This is in direct conflict with goal #2.
There are mechanisms in SGML to support modularization (entities model
the #include feature of C) conditional usage (marked sections model
#ifdef fairly well) and macros (another usage of entities), but they
involve more complexity than interactive processing (goal #3) would
suggest.
Outstanding Issues in HTML
The current working specification for HTML[9] does not faithfully represent
contemporary practice as supported by applications such as Mosiac and Lynx.
Nor do those applications give a precise definition for HTML.
The following is a commentary on the current document in the form of an
enumeration of the outstanding issues as I see them.
STATUS OF FEATURES
The current specification defines the following:
Mainstream All parsers must recognize these features. Features
are mainstream unless otherwise mentioned.
Extra Standard HTML features which may safely be ignored by
parsers. It is legal to ignore these, treat the
contents as though the tags were not there. (e.g. EM,
and any undefined elements)
Obsolete Not standard HTML. Parsers should implement these
features as far as possible in order to preserve
back-compatibility with previous versions of this
specification.
On the one hand, authors would like to be certain that the markup they
compose will be faithfully represented on the other end. On the other hand,
information consumers should be able to filter and format documents as they
please.
Currently, a lot of markup is ignored by various pieces of software without
any warning. It should be possible to determine whether a document uses any
features outside the "Mainstream" or "Extra" set.
Also, there is a need to represent features not specified by the standard.
Pilot projects will want to represent non-standard features without causing
interoperability problems with conforming implementations.
Proposal
Include a document type declaration in future HTML documents to be
explicit about the features used, for example:
<DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//timbl info.cern.ch//DTD WWW HTML 2.1/EN">
to refer to the ENglish version of the DTD named "WWW HTML 2.1" owned by
"timbl info.cern.ch" (can't use @ in SGML public identifiers)
or perhaps:
<DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM "http://info.cern.ch/pub/doc/html-19940415.dtd">
This implies splitting the HTML DTD into parts for use with SGML tools:
(a) an SGML declaration, and (b) a document type declaration subset. This
is consistent with the representations of DTDs for applications such as
CALs and DocBook.
It also implies specifying how to process documents that do not have the
explicit <!DOCTYPE... markup.
Reserve the symbols HTML.Minimal, HTML.Obsolete, HTML.Optional, and
HTML.Nonstandard as "feature test macros." Enhance the DTD to represent
each of these feature sets. For example, to test that a document uses
only Minimal and Optional, but no Obsolete or Nonstandard features, one
might invoke:
sgmls -i Minimal -i Optional foo.html
Require some warning or other indication to be given when markup is
ignored. This includes unrecognized element and attribute names. These
warnings can be suppressed at the explicit request of the user (this is
just a form of filtering), but they should be on by default.
MIME CHARACTER SETS
The spec lists "charset" as an optional parameter in the HTML content type
registration. It should be pointed out that the only possible values for
charset in an HTML content type are "US-ASCII" and "ISO-Latin1." Using any
other character set is meaningless, given that the document character set
for HTML is ISO Latin-1.
NEWLINES, PARAGRAPH BREAKS, AND <P>
Folks have asked why the <p> tag is necessary at all -- why can't we just
use a blank line like troff and TeX?
First, it's too late to do that: there are too many documents with blank
lines that don't indicate a paragraph break.
Second, not everybody wants it that way: I'd like to be free to stick blank
lines in lists and such without introducing paragram breaks.
Third, the mechanism for expressing this in SGML, SHORTREF, introduces
significant complexity to parsing HTML. It opens up a can of worms including
<em/foo/ and other tricky parsing idioms.
But I would like to introduce one change to the way P elements work: I'd
like to make the P element a paragraph container rather than a paragraph
separator. The only required change is to put a <p> tag at the beginning of
every paragraph -- we can use the OMITTAG feature to make </p> tags
implicit. It makes for a much cleaner DTD in many ways, and it just makes
more sense.
CENTERING AND OTHER FORMATTING
The traditional strategy for formatting SGML documents is to mark up the
structure of the document and map that structure onto a set of formatting
features.
It so happens that after we had exhausted the structural distinctions we
needed for HTML, there were several formatting distinctions that were not
expressible through structural markup.
The traditional solution to this situation is to introduce processing
instructions, e.g.
..
<!-- Crud... this header gets widowed at the bottom of the
page. I'll just jimmy it with a page break...-->
<? newpage>
<H2>Header Two</h2>
I suggest we introduce a whole set of processing instructions so that folks
can mark up the formatting of their document without affecting the
structure.
For example, rather than the <BR> element, I'd suggest a <? linebreak>
processing instruction, and a &br; entity as a shorthand form.
The is another wierd one -- it's currently defined as  , which is
indistinguishable from a normal " " character in a conforming
implementation. A "structure controlled application" never sees the entities
until they're expanded, so it can't tell from a normal space
character.
It's fortunate that is an entity, though -- unlike the <BR> idiom,
there's no change necessary to the documents themselves -- just to the DTD
and applications. The set of processing instrcutions should cover:
List styles
Line breaks
Page breaks
Centering, justification
Other RTF-style idioms
STRUCTURE
The text of the current spec says very little about the order and occurence
of elements within the BODY element.
Are lists allowed within lists? The DTD says no, but Mosaic supports it and
the LaTeX->HTML converters I've seen make good use of it.
Is STRONG allowed within EM? Are anchors allowed inside anchors? Can an
anchor span paragraphs?
Are P, LI, DT and DD empty or do they contain stuff? (I'm now of the opinion
that they should contain stuff).
I'm working on a DTD that mirrors the set of combinations that Mosiac seems
to support. I'm also generating a test suite so we can see what the other
browsers do, and so future implementors will have a concrete place to start.
But there are a lot of subtleties to get through here.
I think it's important to keep interoperability in mind here: we don't want
to make it impossible to convert HTML to RTF. But then, there's a lot of
value in being able to represent LaTeX style constructs the way Mosaic does
rather than the way the linemode version of WWW does.
NAVIGATION IDIOMS
I've seen several collections of nodes that represent a sort of "toolbar"
including Next, Previous, Up, Contents, Index, etc. ... There should be a
way of labelling these things so that a browser could grab that stuff out of
the text flow and implement it with an integrated user-interface feature
like a button bar or the like.
PUBLICATION IDIOMS
The same goes for author, last modified, etc. A WWW browser should be able
to implement a "Reply..." menu item which is active iff it spots author info
in the node.
Also, we should realize that HTML nodes get "published" much like email
messages, and as such, it should be required that they have the equivalent
of the RFC822 From:, To:, Date:, and possibly Message-Id: headers.
These elements can and should be automated, and it should be possible for a
node to say "I'm published as part of node XXX... get author and status info
there."
RELIABLE LINKS
I'll take this opportunity to argue once again that content type info should
be allowed in a link. I've made numerous links to compressed tar archives,
and I routinely get mail about "why does Mosaic display gibberish when I
click on the 'compressed tar file' link?"
I think it's time to support more traditional SGML idioms for linking, for
example:
<A HREF="#z12">
<A HREF="foo.html#z12">
<A HREF="http://host.com/foo.html#z12">
becomes
<A IDREF="z12">
<A NEIGHBOR="foo.html" FRAGMENT="z12">
<A RESOURCE="http://host.com/foo.html" fragment="z12">
or better yet, start supporting HyTime ala...
<url id="u1">http://host.com/foo.html</url>
<nameloc locsrc="u1" id="z12">z12</nameloc>
<A linkend="z12">
"OWNERSHIP" OF THE STANDARD
The most recent publication of the HTML specification was an internet draft:
"Hypertext Markup Language (HTML): A Representation of Textual
Information and MetaInformation for Retrieval and
Interchange",07/23/1993, <draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt, .ps>
under the IIIR (Integration of Internet Information Resources) working group
of the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force).
Making HTML an internet standards-track RFC involves more overhead than is
warrented. In the future, the HTML specification will be published as
informational RFCs (FYI documents) from the WWW team at CERN.
Future Directions in HTML
The following issues should remain apart from the immenent HTML standard.
FORMS, TABLES, AND MATH
I think forms should be a separate document type. I don't see a requirement
to be able to include forms inside arbitrary documents. And I see more value
in separating them from the normal HTML document type.
The same goes for tables, math, and small inline images. Rather than trying
to squeeze these into the HTML DTD, we need a way to transmit multiple MIME
body parts in one transaction.
MULTI-BYTE CHARACTER SETS
Some folks have employed techniques for encoding multibyte character sets in
HTML[10]. They point out the interaction between multibyte characters and
SGML delimiter recognition. The SGML standard way to resolve this is to use
a different document character set in the SGML declaraction for HTML. This
places extra requirements on all SGML parsers used for such documents.
Proposal
Explain the use of SGML declarations for use with multibyte character sets
in the spec.
MARKED SECTIONS
This is SGML's equivalent of #ifdef in C. It may be worth supporting them
for a variety of reasons -- one of which is that we're non-conforming unless
we do! But in order for them to be really useful, we'd have to support the
#define equivalent too: entity declarations. For example:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "..." [
<!ENTITY hal-site "IGNORE" -- gets redefined as "INCLUDE" within HaL -->
]>
.. <![ &hal-site; [ For folks at hal only: here's the phone
number: 555-1212 ]]>
LARGE DOCUMENTS
I've heard gross things about folks using cpp and other hacks to deal with
the problem of organizing large HTML documents. And we have no common way to
aggregate a collection of HTML nodes to, for example, print them.
STYLE SHEETS AND MULTIPLE DTDS
In the long run, we should be headed toward a system that accomodates a
variety of DTDs, using stylesheets somehow.
------- =_aaaaaaaaaa1
Content-Type: text/x-html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <16806.765504133.4@ulua>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//connolly hal.com//DTD WWW HTML 1.7.2.3//EN">
<head>
<title>Toward Closure on HTML</title>
<link rev=3D"made" href=3D"mailto:connolly@hal.com">
</head>
<h1>Toward Closure on HTML</h1>
<address>Version: $Id: html-direction.html,v 1.2 1994/04/04 23:59:21 conno=
lly Exp $<br>
Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@hal.com></address>
<p>When I began looking at HTML and WWW, it was difficult to tell exactly
what HTML was, so I tried to develop a specification. That spec
apparently hasn't solved much :-{ It failed to address a number of
features essential to the successful deployment of HTML.
<p>But HTML is a couple years older now, and perhaps now we're in a
position to see the majority of the issues clearly now. It has been
suggested (see <a
href=3D"http://gummo.stanford.edu/html/hypermail/www-talk-1994q1.messages/=
1056.html"><cite>heretical
suggestion</cite></a>) that now is the time to take the current
practice and capture it in a specification.
<h2>The Purpose of HTML</h2>
<p>If we take a step back and look at the purpose and requirements and
such for HTML, I'd say the purpose of HTML is:
<strong>to promote computer mediated communication between parties on
the internet by representing information in terms of available
hypermedia technology.
</strong>
<p>The idea is that I use the tools available on my box to capture my
ideas at a fairly high level, so that you can use the tools on your
box to filter/navigate/display the ideas. And even though your tools
and my tools are not exactly the same, there's a high degree of
confidence that the ideas get through in-tact.
<p>So to me, the idea of deploying specialized HTML editors on all the
various platforms makes HTML no better than RTF or PostScript -- the
data is tied to the supporting code. This is not to discourage the
development of specialized HTML tools, but to encourage
interoperability between existing tools (MS Word, FrameMaker,
emacs...) and HTML applications, and to discourage "creeping
featurism" in HTML.
<h2>The Goals of an HTML Specification</h2>
<p>The goal of any HTML specification should be to promote that
confidence in the fidelity of communications using HTML. This means:
<ol>
<li>making it clear to authors what idioms are available
to express their ideas
<li>making it clear to implementors how to interpret the
HTML format so that authors' ideas will be represented faithfully
<li>keeping HTML simple enough that it can be implemented
using readily available technology and processed interactively
<li>making HTML expressive enough that it can represent
a useful majority of the contemporary communications idioms in
this community
<li>making some allowance for expressing idioms not captured
by the specification
<li>addressing relavent interoperability issues with other
applications and technologies
</ol>
<h2>HTML Architecture: SGML</h2>
<p>From <A
HREF=3D"http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/MarkUp.html"><CITE>HyperT=
ext
Mark-up Language</CITE></A>:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
The <A
NAME=3D"0" HREF=3D"http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/TheProject.html">WWW<=
/A> system uses marked up text
to represent a hypertext document
for transmision over the network.
The hypertext markup language is
an <A
NAME=3D"7" HREF=3D"http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/SGML.html">SGM=
L</A> format.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<!-- I should be able to use relative links within the above quote... -->
<p>The costs and benefits of basing using SGML to define HTML have
been discussed at great length. Simplifications have been suggested
(see, for example, <a
href=3D"http://gummo.stanford.edu/html/hypermail/www-talk-1994q1.messages/=
632.html"><cite>A
thought on implementation...</cite></a> and responses). But at this
point, it appears that there is a clear requirement that <strong>an
HTML document shall be a <A
HREF=3D"sgml-excerpts.html#SGML4.51"><CITE>conforming SGML
document</CITE>
</a>.</strong>
<p>The benefits of using SGML to define HTML include:
<ul>
<li>Given a formal definition of HTML in SGML (i.e. an html <a
HREF=3D"sgml-excerpts.html#SGML4.105">DTD</a>), the question of whether a
document conforms to that definition can be determined by machine
(e.g. by the <a href=3D"ftp://ifi.uio.no/pub/SGML/SGMLS/">SGMLs software
package</a>, or by various interactive SGML editing tools). This
allows authors a certain degree of confidence that they have prepared
a well-formed document, and supports goal #1.
<li>The SGML standard, combined with a DTD for HTML, defines an
abstract parsing model for reducing an SGML document in source form to
an abstract representation called the Entity Structure Information
Set. This provides a basis for a common interpretation of HTML
documents, in support of goal #2.
<li>SGML is designed for document interchange, and many vendors have
seen the value in supporting SGML as an interchange option. This
supports goal #6.
</ul>
<p>The costs of using SGML to define HTML include:
<ul>
<li>The SGML standard is an extremely dense document. It is not
designed for easy reading. SGML documents, on the other hand, are
largely transparent. But not completely. It is quite common to browse
a number of SGML documents and reach intuitive conclusions that are
inconsitent with the standard. This is in direct conflict with goal
#2.
<li>There are mechanisms in SGML to support modularization (entities
model the #include feature of C) conditional usage (marked sections
model #ifdef fairly well) and macros (another usage of entities), but
they involve more complexity than interactive processing (goal #3)
would suggest.
</ul>
<h2>Outstanding Issues in HTML</h2>
<p>The current working <a
HREF=3D"http://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/HTML.html">specification
for HTML</a> does not faithfully represent contemporary practice as
supported by applications such as Mosiac and Lynx. Nor do those
applications give a precise definition for HTML.
<p>The following is a commentary on the current document in the form
of an enumeration of the outstanding issues as I see
them.
<h3>Status of features</h3>
<p>The current specification defines the following:
<DL>
<DT><A
NAME=3D"z2">Mainstream</A>
<DD> All parsers must recognize
these features. Features are mainstream
unless otherwise mentioned.
<DT><A
NAME=3D"z5">Extra</A>
<DD> Standard HTML features which
may safely be ignored by parsers.
It is legal to ignore these, treat
the contents as though the tags were
not there. (e.g. EM, and any undefined
elements)
<DT><A
NAME=3D"z8">Obsolete</A>
<DD> Not standard HTML. Parsers
should implement these features as
far as possible in order to preserve
back-compatibility with previous
versions of this specification.
</DL>
<p>On the one hand, authors would like to be certain that the markup
they compose will be faithfully represented on the other end. On the
other hand, information consumers should be able to filter and format
documents as they please.
<p>Currently, a lot of markup is ignored by various pieces of
software without any warning. It should be possible to determine
whether a document uses any features outside the "Mainstream" or
"Extra" set.
<p>Also, there is a need to represent features not specified by the
standard. Pilot projects will want to represent non-standard features
without causing interoperability problems with conforming
implementations.
<H4>Proposal</h4>
<ol>
<li>Include a document type declaration in future HTML documents to be
explicit about the features used, for example:
<pre>
<DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//timbl info.cern.ch//DTD WWW HTML 2.1/EN">
</pre>
<P>to refer to the ENglish version of the DTD named "WWW HTML 2.1"
owned by "timbl info.cern.ch" (can't use @ in SGML public identifiers)
<P>or perhaps:
<pre>
<DOCTYPE HTML SYSTEM "http://info.cern.ch/pub/doc/html-19940415.dtd">=
;
</pre>
<p>This implies splitting the HTML DTD into parts for use with SGML
tools: (a) an SGML declaration, and (b) a document type declaration
subset. This is consistent with the representations of DTDs for
applications such as CALs and DocBook.
<p>It also implies specifying how to process documents that do not
have the explicit <code><!DOCTYPE...</code> markup.
<LI> Reserve the symbols HTML.Minimal, HTML.Obsolete, HTML.Optional,
and HTML.Nonstandard as "feature test macros." Enhance the DTD to
represent each of these feature sets. For example, to test that a
document uses only Minimal and Optional, but no Obsolete or
Nonstandard features, one might invoke:
<pre>
sgmls -i Minimal -i Optional foo.html
</pre>
<LI>Require some warning or other indication to be given when markup
is ignored. This includes unrecognized element and attribute names.
These warnings can be suppressed at the explicit request of the user
(this is just a form of filtering), but they should be on by default.
</ol>
<h3>MIME Character sets</h3>
<P>The spec lists "charset" as an optional parameter in the HTML
content type registration. It should be pointed out that the only
possible values for charset in an HTML content type are "US-ASCII" and
"ISO-Latin1." Using any other character set is meaningless, given that
the document character set for HTML is ISO Latin-1.
<h3>Newlines, Paragraph breaks, and <P></h3>
<!-- @@blank lines for paragraph breaks -->
<P>Folks have asked why the <p> tag is necessary at all -- why
can't we just use a blank line like troff and TeX?
<P>First, it's too late to do that: there are too many documents with
blank lines that <EM>don't</EM> indicate a paragraph break.
<P>Second, not everybody wants it that way: I'd like to be free to
stick blank lines in lists and such without introducing paragram
breaks.
<p>Third, the mechanism for expressing this in SGML, SHORTREF,
introduces significant complexity to parsing HTML. It opens up a can
of worms including <CODE><em/foo/</CODE> and other tricky parsing
idioms.
<p>But I would like to introduce one change to the way P elements
work: I'd like to make the P element a paragraph container rather than
a paragraph separator. The only required change is to put a <p>
tag at the beginning of every paragraph -- we can use the OMITTAG
feature to make </p> tags implicit. It makes for a much cleaner
DTD in many ways, and it just makes more sense.
<h3>Centering and other formatting</h3>
<P>The traditional strategy for formatting SGML documents is to mark
up the structure of the document and map that structure onto a set of
formatting features.
<P>It so happens that after we had exhausted the structural
distinctions we needed for HTML, there were several formatting
distinctions that were not expressible through structural markup.
<P>The traditional solution to this situation is to introduce
processing instructions, e.g.
<PRE>
..
<!-- Crud... this header gets widowed at the bottom of the
page. I'll just jimmy it with a page break...-->
<? newpage>
<H2>Header Two</h2>
</PRE>
<P>I suggest we introduce a whole set of processing instructions so
that folks can mark up the formatting of their document without
affecting the structure.
<P>For example, rather than the <CODE><BR></CODE> element, I'd
suggest a <CODE><? linebreak></CODE> processing instruction, and
a <CODE>&br;</CODE> entity as a shorthand form.
<P>The <CODE>&nbsp;</CODE> is another wierd one -- it's currently
defined as <CODE>&#32;</CODE>, which is indistinguishable from a
normal " " character in a conforming implementation. A "structure
controlled application" never sees the entities until they're
expanded, so it can't tell <CODE>&nbsp;</CODE> from a normal space
character.
<P>It's fortunate that <CODE>&nbsp;</CODE> is an entity, though --
unlike the <CODE><BR></CODE> idiom, there's no change necessary
to the documents themselves -- just to the DTD and applications.
The set of processing instrcutions should cover:
<UL>
<LI> List styles
<LI> Line breaks
<LI> Page breaks
<LI> Centering, justification
<LI> Other RTF-style idioms
</UL>
<h3>Structure</h3>
<P>The text of the current spec says very little about the order and
occurence of elements within the <CODE>BODY</CODE> element.
<P>Are lists allowed within lists? The DTD says no, but Mosaic
supports it and the LaTeX->HTML converters I've seen make good use
of it.
<P>Is <CODE>STRONG</CODE> allowed within <CODE>EM</CODE>? Are anchors
allowed inside anchors? Can an anchor span paragraphs?
<P>Are P, LI, DT and DD empty or do they contain stuff? (I'm now of
the opinion that they should contain stuff).
<P>I'm working on a DTD that mirrors the set of combinations that
Mosiac seems to support. I'm also generating a test suite so we can
see what the other browsers do, and so future implementors will have a
concrete place to start. But there are a lot of subtleties to get
through here.
<P>I think it's important to keep interoperability in mind here: we
don't want to make it impossible to convert HTML to RTF. But then,
there's a lot of value in being able to represent LaTeX style
constructs the way Mosaic does rather than the way the linemode
version of WWW does.
<h3>Navigation idioms</h3>
<p>I've seen several collections of nodes that represent a sort of
"toolbar" including Next, Previous, Up, Contents, Index, etc. ...
There should be a way of labelling these things so that a browser
could grab that stuff out of the text flow and implement it with an
integrated user-interface feature like a button bar or the like.
<h3>Publication Idioms</h3>
<p>The same goes for author, last modified, etc. A WWW browser should
be able to implement a "Reply..." menu item which is active iff it
spots author info in the node.
<P>Also, we should realize that HTML nodes get "published" much like
email messages, and as such, it should be required that they have the
equivalent of the RFC822 From:, To:, Date:, and possibly Message-Id:
headers.
<P>These elements can and should be automated, and it should be
possible for a node to say "I'm published as part of node XXX... get
author and status info there."
<h3>Reliable Links</h3>
<P>I'll take this opportunity to argue once again that content type
info should be allowed in a link. I've made numerous links to
compressed tar archives, and I routinely get mail about "why does
Mosaic display gibberish when I click on the 'compressed tar file'
link?"
<P>I think it's time to support more traditional SGML idioms for
linking, for example:
<PRE>
<A HREF=3D"#z12">
<A HREF=3D"foo.html#z12">
<A HREF=3D"http://host.com/foo.html#z12">
</PRE>
<P>becomes
<PRE>
<A IDREF=3D"z12">
<A NEIGHBOR=3D"foo.html" FRAGMENT=3D"z12">
<A RESOURCE=3D"http://host.com/foo.html" fragment=3D"z12">
</PRE>
<P>or better yet, start supporting HyTime ala...
<PRE>
<url id=3D"u1">http://host.com/foo.html</url>
<nameloc locsrc=3D"u1" id=3D"z12">z12</nameloc>
<A linkend=3D"z12">
</PRE>
<h3>"Ownership" of the Standard</h3>
<p>The most recent publication of the HTML specification was an
internet draft:
<pre>
"Hypertext Markup Language (HTML): A Representation of Textual =
Information and MetaInformation for Retrieval and =
Interchange",07/23/1993, <draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt, .ps>
</pre>
<p>under the IIIR (Integration of Internet Information Resources) working
group of the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force).
<p>Making HTML an internet standards-track RFC involves more overhead
than is warrented. In the future, the HTML specification will be
published as informational RFCs (FYI documents) from the WWW team at
CERN.
<h2>Future Directions in HTML</h2>
<p>The following issues should remain apart from the immenent HTML
standard.
<h3>Forms, Tables, and Math</h3>
<P>I think forms should be a separate document type. I don't see a
requirement to be able to include forms inside arbitrary documents.
And I see more value in separating them from the normal HTML document
type.
<P>The same goes for tables, math, and small inline images. Rather
than trying to squeeze these into the HTML DTD, we need a way to
transmit multiple MIME body parts in one transaction.
<h3>Multi-byte character sets</h3>
<p>Some folks have employed <a
href=3D"http://www.ntt.jp/japan/note-on-JP/encoding.html">techniques for
encoding multibyte character sets in HTML</a>. They point out the
interaction between multibyte characters and SGML delimiter
recognition. The SGML standard way to resolve this is to use a
different document character set in the SGML declaraction for HTML.
This places extra requirements on all SGML parsers used for such
documents.
<h4>Proposal</h4>
<p>Explain the use of SGML declarations for use with
multibyte character sets in the spec.
<h3>Marked Sections</h3>
<p>This is SGML's equivalent of <code>#ifdef</code> in C. It may be
worth supporting them for a variety of reasons -- one of which is that
we're non-conforming unless we do! But in order for them to be really
useful, we'd have to support the <code>#define</code> equivalent too:
entity declarations. For example:
<pre>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "..." [
<!ENTITY hal-site "IGNORE" -- gets redefined as "INCLUDE" within HaL --=
>
]>
.. <![ &hal-site; [ For folks at hal only: here's the phone
number: 555-1212 ]]>
</pre>
<h3>Large Documents</h3>
<P>I've heard gross things about folks using cpp and other hacks to
deal with the problem of organizing large HTML documents. And we have
no common way to aggregate a collection of HTML nodes to, for example,
print them.
<h3>Style Sheets and Multiple DTDs</h3>
<p>In the long run, we should be headed toward a system that accomodates
a variety of DTDs, using stylesheets somehow.
------- =_aaaaaaaaaa1--
------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0--