This is a list of issues that people have raised in regards to HTML 3.0.
Tony Jebson <aj@wg.icl.co.uk> writes:
The emacs browser allows an HTML document to define its own additional entities, is this legal in an HTML 3.0 document? If so how would I define such a thing and still have a conformant SGML document?
How about something like:
<!DOCTYPE HTML-3.0 [ <!ENTITY that CDATA "þæt"> ]> <HTML-3.0> .. &that; .. </HTML-3.0>Assuming this is legal, does/will "Arena" support this?
I think we should support this, and to further support the use of marked sections in HTML 3.0 documents. I don't think we need to support <!ELEMENT> or <!ATTLIST> etc. though.
Paul Burchard <burchard@horizon.math.utah.edu> writes:
Why not extend FIG-style alignments to INPUTs as well? I realize that you deliberately made IMG as backwards compatible as possible to gain freedom for the development of FIG, but there's no replacement for INPUT. At least for INPUTs like SUBMIT, IMAGE, and SCRIBBLE that can have background images, it would be nice to be able to place text alongside, just as for figures.
What should we call the new element then? What about FIELD? The declaration would be the same as INPUT but with a %text; content.
Michael Johnson < michaelj@relay.relay.com> writes:
In reading through the HTML3 DTD, I note that some of the elements that were in HTML+ have been omitted from the draft HTML3 specification. The ones that I most want to see resurrected in HTML3 are:
- ABSTRACT
- ADDED
- ARG
- BYLINE
- CHANGED
- CMD
- FOOTNOTE
- REMOVED
If I had to choose one of these to make the cut, it would be FOOTNOTE, with CHANGED a close second. MARGIN is redundant if FOOTNOTE is retained.
ONLINE and PRINTED might be nice, but their absence would not break my heart.