The lack of scripting support probably mattered less then than it does now. It’s now a compelling reason not to use ISO HTML.

It can also be difficult to convert existing documents to ISO HTML due to the different content model for header elements (H1, H2, etc) of ISO HTML. The complexities of this model go beyond just the quote that Edward gave in the post. For example, in ISO HTML, headings are not permitted within DIV elements. They must go directly in the BODY element, or, with a modification to your DOCTYPE, you may instead use a complicated series of elements such as DIV1, DIV2, DIV3, etc, which must be nested in a certain way and begin at the BODY element. You would then forfeit your use of the DIV element altogether.

Such restrictions would make it hard to use proper headings (H1, H2, etc) at all, at least in the ways we are used to using them, and if we wanted a heading in a DIV it would be tempting just to emulate headings using CSS.

It you are already using HTML 4, then it’s not much of a jump, other than some more strictness (Not a bad thing).

It does beg the question though, will ISO HTML + ISO CSS + EMCA script define the RENDERING of pages well enough to help? We need one (or all) of the standards to give definitive rendering information. The HTML ISO standard stipulates what makes a structurally correct page, but not a semantically correct page. It says that a H1 has to follow a H2, but it doesn’t really say “A H2 is how a second level heading” (Maybe it does, that example doesn’t look like the full document).

Is that with in the scope of an ISO standard? I may go look at the new PDF ISO standard, as that would have to do the same thing I would imagine?