[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On 11/29/05, Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com> wrote:
> Spy Vs Spy aside for the moment, and following the thought experiment at Tim
> Bray's blog:
>
> How much of a common word processing format subset is represented by HTML?
> How much isn't? How much could be added by namespaced behaviors?
>
> IOW, don't we have one of these?
Interesting question. Early in my career I spent a lot of time with
SGML. Given that the target in those days was document publishing I
don't think there where many constructs missing that Word it it's kin
would possess with the exception of behaviours. When HTML came along
I was first surprised that so many of the SGML constructs had made it
into the spec. but there where also times when I found things missing
that I sort of wanted.
How much is missing? I bet I have an IBM SGML reference card in my
attic somewhere, building the feature checklist would be easy...
However, the need for macros and behaviours would be all new (to
standardised HTML), so although it might be a good starting point, I
somehow doubt that it's the end point? I suspect you're still going
to have some battles to win before any new standard emerges.
<snip/>
--
Peter Hunsberger
|
