> OBSOLETE ELEMENTS [WAS: HTML 2.0 CALL FOR REVIEW ]
> "Daniel W. Connolly" <[log in to unmask]>
> * Reply: Peter Flynn: "Re: Obsolete Elements [Was: HTML 2.0 Call for Review ]"
> Message-id: <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Obsolete Elements [Was: HTML 2.0 Call for Review ]
> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Jun 1994 13:25:11 -0000."
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 15:08:28 -0500
> From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <[log in to unmask]>
> In message <[log in to unmask]>, Dave Raggett writes:
> > o <!ENTITY % pre "PRE | XMP | LISTING">
> >Doesn't this make it hard to test for obsolete elements with SGMLS?
> >I would prefer to see them defined in a marked section so that
> >its easy to switch obsolete elements in/out of the DTD for testing.
> Good idea.
> What's the general consensus out there about obsolete elements?
> The only ones I know of are XMP and LISTING.
> Should we even mess with putting them in the DTD? Or should we just
> stick a note in the spec about how implementations are encouraged
> to include this hack?
I was wondering why XMP and LISTING are being made obsolete. They are
very useful when you want to return system error messages to the user
during the execution of a script. I can't use PRE because Lynx will get
confused when there is an unadorned "<".
Is there any chance that the obsolete status of XMP and/or LISTING can