httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ed Korthof">
Subject Re: Don't know other ways (fwd)
Date Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:12:49 GMT
I agree with Brian -- we don't want to do SGML.  I've worked some with SGML --
it's not easy to use, tools are hard to find, hard to use, and/or expensive,
and it seems unlikely that there are enough people familiar with it who are
documenting Apache for a switchover to be possible w/o lots of time and effort.

*If* we really want to maintain extra information, Brian's suggestion seems
reasonable (though I'm not very familiar with CLASSes or stylesheets, so long
as the tags contain all the structure, they'd be fine; tagged-text processing
is considerably easier than full SGML authoring; the only disadvantage is a
lack of enforcement of rules -- which we should do ourselves anyway).  With any
set of tags which indicates the relevant structure, we'd easily be able to
extract all the information SGML would allow.

Ed Korthof

On Nov 25, 10:25am, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Let's get our terms straight.  SGML is a document meta-language.  HTML is
> defined in a Document Type Definition, written in SGML.  Documents are not
> SGML format", they are in a document language described by an SGML DTD. By
> definition, HTML is an "SGML format".  So, I'm confused - are you saying we
> should create our own DTD, and author within that?  I don't see significant
> value of that over using a well-defined subset of HTML 2.0 or 3.2 (i.e.
> avoiding <FONT>, etc).  If there's a need for richer semantics, we could use
> CLASSes on tags, and then apply style sheets to those classes.  The costs in
> opinion of switching to our own DTD would be in reduced access (those who
> and view the source docs must use SGML tools), having to decide upon a new
> (a political/engineering process), and we'd still have to define how the new
> DTD maps to PS, LaTex, etc.  All that work has been done for us with HTML.
> 	Brian

View raw message