[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Peter Hunsberger wrote:
> 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.
Wouldn't:
<object .../>
<link .../>
<script .../>
handle anything not explicitly definied?
I don't get the push for ODF. I don't get why XHTML isn't all you need
for a common document format. Transforming configuration and content to
XHTML makes much more sense to me. Keeping styling info in a separate
and app/site wide file makes much more sense to me.
best,
-Rob
>
> <snip/>
>
> --
> Peter Hunsberger
>
|
