[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
As Joe pointed out, I forgot HTML. I keep
forgetting it is an SGML application language. ;-)
I'll transcribe those pages for you in the morning
and send them along. As I said to Joe, ugly reading,
so I won't even attempt to translate them.
The SGML Handbook is well worth having for these
odd moments even if "it reads like stereo instructions".
Written in 1990, the foreward from Yuri says,
"The next five years will see a revolution in
computing." A masterful example of understatement
even if the reasons were both more and less
complex than he knew.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit:
> *Bonehead elements* might be good.
Ho!
> Other than in
> the SGML Handbook, I've never seen these used
> in practice.
Well the document "<title>foo</title>bar" is valid HTML (not XHTML)
if appropriately decorated with a DOCTYPE declaration,
and means "<html><head><title>foo</title></head><body>bar</body></html>".
HTML 4.01 has four phantom elements: html, head, body, and tbody (inside
tables).
> Assuming that your SGML Declaration has "OMITTAG YES"
> and you aren't playing with short tags.
Correct.
> "A start tag is omissible when the element type is
> contextually required and any other elemnt types that
> could occur are contextually optional." pg 74
Okay, fair enough.
> "Even when an element is contextually required, its
> start tag cannot be omitted if the element type has
> required attributes or a declared content, or if the
> instance of the element is empty." pg 75
Okay. Required attributes have to go someplace, and EMPTY or CDATA or other
oddball contents can't just appear without any lexical labeling.
> Section 4.6.1 takes up the OMITTAG feature in more
> detail. If you don't have a copy of the handbook,
> let me know and I will transcribe the relevant
> page or two.
Thanks, I'd appreciate it.
|
