On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Stu Weibel wrote:
> I respect the position of Jon and Lauren (and others, undoubtably), who
> want approved, parsable HTML, but once again, if the *ONLY* thing in
> the world that is compromised is validation (and this, only in a very
> constrained, arguably parsable way), should this stand in the way of
> trying to establish a practice that is what we want down the road?
But the syntax we're arguing about is the embedded format of DCES in HTML
_2.0_ (and 3.2 by the looks of things). The versions of HTML are done
and out there now and we've got to accept the syntax they impose and work
within it. You wouldn't break a MARC record's directory structure just
because you wanted to put in a new doodah in your own format and I don't
think we should break HTML 2.0 syntax either. We should be supporting
standards, not breaking them.
However there's nothing to stop us requesting additional attributes in the
META tag (or changing the data type of the NAME attribute at least) in a
future version of HTML. With the support of SoftQuad (and Netscape and
Microsoft?) we'll hopefully be able to get the META tag's syntax extended
to support DCES better. After all don't forget that even the
Schema.ElementName bit in the NAME attribute is a "dot.kludge" at the
moment!
Tatty bye,
Jim'll
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Jon "Jim'll" Knight, Researcher, Sysop and General Dogsbody, Dept. Computer
Studies, Loughborough University of Technology, Leics., ENGLAND. LE11 3TU.
* I've found I now dream in Perl. More worryingly, I enjoy those dreams. *
|