Tina Holmboe wrote:
> On 22 Aug, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

>> But, for a markup language to be useful in marking up complex and 
>> multifaceted real-world content, there may be no other way than to 
>> create a complex language specification.
> 
>   That depends on whether you create /one/ language to mark up /all/
>   real-world content or not.
> 
>   The problem with creating an authorcentric markup language that can
>   be, via attributes, infinitly extended, is that you are adding near
>   infinite complexity on the /user/ end of things.

Completely agree (although I didn't touch on it in my replies, admittedly).

 >   Practice in the SGML world has always been to create specialized
 >   languages. HTML is - and XHTML could have been - a limited, but
 >   generic, language. It's not meant to mark up everything.

In this case then, using extensibility and namespacing, things like 
CompSci specific markup, as well as mathematical/chemical/etc 
specialised languages should be used, rather than keeping those very 
specific (in the case of samp,kbd,var) and those completely 
inappropriate (imho) elements (sub/sup) completely out of the generic 
language.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
__________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com 
__________________________________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/ 
__________________________________________________________