Re: Adding new tags (was: Redefining...)

Bert Bos ([email protected])
Mon, 13 Jun 1994 19:28:02 +0200 (METDST)


Murray Maloney writes:

|So, what is the story going to be? I think that
|we have to decide and commit right now. Either
|we are going to define HTML 2.0 and 3.0 as strictly
|conforming SGML DTDs and not provide trivial mechanisms
|for extending the language at the whim of information
|providers or browser developers, OR we are going to use
|SGML as a language of convenience for defining HTML 2.0
|and 3.0 and then provide simple but effective ways to
|formalize a mechanism for the extension of the language.

My vote (I thought this was agreed upon a long time ago...):

- Yes, documents in HTML versions >= 2.0 must be fully SGML compliant
- But browsers don't have to validate documents

Bert

-- 
                     __________________________________
                    / _   Bert Bos <[email protected]>   |
           ()       |/ \  Alfa-informatica,            |
            \       |\_/  Rijksuniversiteit Groningen  |
             \_____/|     Postbus 716                  |
                    |     9700 AS GRONINGEN            |
                    |     Nederland                    |
                    |     http://tyr.let.rug.nl/~bert/ |
                    \__________________________________|