From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on
Richard Cornford wrote:

> Scott Sauyet wrote:
>> Well, his comments on the mark-up are only valid for HTML doctypes.
>> Whereas this is valid for HTML4 or XHTML:
>>
>> <input type="submit" id="butOne" value="butOne"/>
>
> That is a true statement (at least to the extent to which it is possible
> to declare any mark-up fragment 'valid', given that validity is a
> quality that only applies to hole documents in this context), but it is
> a true statement behind which there is an explanation that reveals a
> very messy truth.
>
> HTML is an application of SGML (Standard Generalised Markup Language, as
> defined in ISO 8879). HTML 4 has an "SGML Declaration" which asserts a
> set of features from SGML that are (theoretically) used in HTML, and
> which impact on HTML validity. An extract from that document reads:-
>
> | <!SGML "ISO 8879:1986 (WWW)"
> | --
> | SGML Declaration for HyperText Markup Language version HTML 4
> | ...
> | --
> | ...
> | FEATURES
> | MINIMIZE
> | DATATAG NO
> | OMITTAG YES
> | RANK NO
> | SHORTTAG YES
> |
> | ...
>
> So, for example, that "OMITTAG YES" allows HTML to imply opening and
> closing tags based on (structural) context, in a way that is forbidden
> in XML (and so in XHTML). The "SHORTTAG YES" makes provision for an SGML
> shorthand that allows, e.g.:-
>
> <title></title>
>
> - to be written as:-
>
> <title/
>
> -(note that there is no closing chevron in that TITLE element
> declaration).

No SGML markup item (to avoid the ambiguous term "element") is a
declaration if it does not start with `<!' (Markup Declaration Open [MDO]
delimiter).

The correct term for this is _start tag_ (of an element).


PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
From: Eric Bednarz on
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes:

> Richard Cornford wrote:

>> […] The "SHORTTAG YES" makes provision for an SGML
>> shorthand that allows, e.g.:-
>>
>> <title></title>
>>
>> - to be written as:-
>>
>> <title/

Not exactly. Rather as:

<title//

>> -(note that there is no closing chevron in that TITLE element
>> declaration).
>
> No SGML markup item (to avoid the ambiguous term "element") is a
> declaration if it does not start with `<!'

That is a false – generalized – statement, because it implies the
reference concrete syntax.

> (Markup Declaration Open [MDO]
> delimiter).

> The correct term for this is _start tag_ (of an element).

The correct term is 'start-tag'.
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on
Eric Bednarz wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes:
>> Richard Cornford wrote:
>>> <title/
> [...]
>>> -(note that there is no closing chevron in that TITLE element
>>> declaration).
>>
>> No SGML markup item (to avoid the ambiguous term "element") is a
>> declaration if it does not start with `<!'
>
> That is a false – generalized – statement, because it implies the
> reference concrete syntax.

Maybe so; however, the code above is certainly no declaration.

What other declarations are there in SGML that do not start with `<!'
(MDO)?

>> (Markup Declaration Open [MDO]
>> delimiter).
>
>> The correct term for this is _start tag_ (of an element).
>
> The correct term is 'start-tag'.

I daresay that is a matter of preference; the hyphenization of compound
words is not fixed in English. We can find occurrences of "start-tag", but
also "start tag" in references; in the SGML grammar we can also find
"start_tag" which would indicate that the original wording was "start tag"
(as in "element_content" for "element content").


PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
From: Eric Bednarz on
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes:

> Eric Bednarz wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes:

>>> No SGML markup item (to avoid the ambiguous term "element") is a
>>> declaration if it does not start with `<!'
>>
>> That is a false – generalized – statement, because it implies the
>> reference concrete syntax.

[…]

> What other declarations are there in SGML that do not start with `<!'
> (MDO)?

I don't know what was difficult to understand about my statement.


<!SGML "ISO 8879:1986 (WWW)"
CHARSET
BASESET
"ISO 646:1983//CHARSET International
Reference Version (IRV)//ESC 2/5 4/0"
DESCSET
0 9 UNUSED
9 2 9
11 2 UNUSED
13 1 13
14 18 UNUSED
32 95 32
127 1 UNUSED
CAPACITY
PUBLIC "ISO 8879-1986//CAPACITY Reference//EN"
SCOPE
DOCUMENT
SYNTAX
SHUNCHAR NONE
BASESET
"ISO 646-1983//CHARSET International
Reference Version (IRV)//ESC 2/5 4/0"
DESCSET
0 128 0
FUNCTION
RE 13
RS 10
SPACE 32
TAB SEPCHAR 9
NAMING
LCNMSTRT ""
UCNMSTRT ""
LCNMCHAR ""
UCNMCHAR ""
NAMECASE
GENERAL YES
ENTITY NO
DELIM
GENERAL SGMLREF
DSC "."
DSO ":"
MDC "."
MDO "AN"
NESTC "('"
NET "');"
STAGO "j"
SHORTREF SGMLREF
NAMES
SGMLREF
ANY ANSWERED
DOCTYPE SWER
ELEMENT Y
QUANTITY
SGMLREF
FEATURES
MINIMIZE
DATATAG NO
OMITTAG NO
RANK NO
SHORTTAG YES
LINK
SIMPLE NO
IMPLICIT NO
EXPLICIT NO
OTHER
CONCUR NO
SUBDOC NO
FORMAL NO
APPINFO NONE

>
Answer query:
Any query answered...
jQuery('SGML is bad, mkay');

From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on
Eric Bednarz wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes:
>> Eric Bednarz wrote:
>>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars(a)web.de> writes:
>>>> No SGML markup item (to avoid the ambiguous term "element") is a
>>>> declaration if it does not start with `<!'
>>>
>>> That is a false – generalized – statement, because it implies the
>>> reference concrete syntax.
>
> […]
>
>> What other declarations are there in SGML that do not start with `<!'
>> (MDO)?
>
> I don't know what was difficult to understand about my statement.

I don't know why you are not answering my question but quote something that
proves me right instead.

> <!SGML "ISO 8879:1986 (WWW)" [...]
^^
You see the MDO here, don't you?


POintedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann