[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 20:58 12/04/2004, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>At 10:11 AM -0500 4/12/04, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>>A DTD can be written to do exactly that by requiring an
>>acknowledgement of the warning. This is IETM markup
>>and that can be done.
>
>
>I suppose I can see how it could require an acknowledgement of the
>warning. However, I still maintain that it is incapable of determining:
>
>1. That a warning is called for.
>2. That a warning has been mislabelled as a caution by the writer.
If both a caution and a warning are allowed, but the writer uses a caution
where a warning is required: yes, there's nothing a DTD, good or bad, can
do about it. There's also nothing an editor (the kind that's written in
Java or whatever) can do about it. This is the kind of situation that
requires an editor (the human kind, not the kind written in Java or whatever).
IMHO, it also calls for 220 Volts through the keyboard. ;-)
But this is not what the real issue was about. It was about not allowing
the writer--especially not the kind of writer that uses a caution when a
warning is called for--to insert his own markup if he thinks that a caution
really doesn't cut it.
This is what the DTD is supposed to handle.
Best,
/Ari
|
