[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
BTW, this just popped up on the W3 CSS list:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/boom
best,
-Rob
Robert Koberg wrote:
> 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
>>
>
|
