> > (a) It's text until STAGO, ETAGO, or MDO.
> > (b) After STAGO/ETAGO/MDO, immediately scan forward for the first
> > occurence of '>'. Designate that as TAGC/MDC, and copy everything
> > in between (that was passed over in this scan) to a buffer.
> > (c) Tokenize buffer for GI, attributes and values.
> > (d) Goto (a)
>
> Bingo! This is the World's Most Lucid Mosaic-2.4-HTML Spec! :-)
And isn't well past the time for this to be fixed? Why the delay?
> >I find inexplicable -- and distressing -- the reluctance of the Working
> >Group to confront this issue, especially the significance of HTMLparse.c.
>
> Huh? I think we addressed it pretty clearly in HTML 2.0. Mosaic 2.4
> has some bugs. Most of them are called out explicitly as notes in the
> spec. For the right answer, you gotta follow the SGML spec. What's
> left to confront?
Sorry, missed it (gotta look again, then:-))
> >So, I'll try once more: Can the Working Group offer an explanation why
> >HTMLparse.c should be considered a conforming implementation of the
> >Refrence Concrete Syntax as it applies to HTML?
>
> Nope. I'm not about to defend such a fallacy. Where did you get the
> idea we would/should?
Nothing specifically, except the absence of discussion. I fear a general
underestimation of the disaster in the making, if it hasn't matured
already (as Benjamin Franz argues.) As I said, people adapt to
implementations, and deployed software has considerable inertial force.
There comes a point where getting the official spec right becomes
irrelevant. The essential tragedy there is that the official spec
nevertheless constitutes a sanction, only to be observed in the breach.
Clearly we need a sound foundation to build anything on it. What's more
fundamental than the Concrete Syntax?
Arjun Ray
(I speak for myself only.)