W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: Meta stuff[was: [Fwd: Review of HTML 4.0 Specification]]

From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:50:11 +0200 (MET)
Message-Id: <9709181650.ZM7874@grommit.inria.fr>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
Cc: www-html-editor@w3.org, ij@w3.org
On Sep 17,  2:37pm, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Those are all identified as links by the spec (except A NAME).

It's a head anchor, I thought it qualified as a link.

> Don't forget <form METHOD=GET ACTION="...">.

Right. And as you say, HTML 2.0 identifies even more

> > I hope that you don't really feel that group agreement is just "people
> > shouting louder"
> Not in all cases, but in this case, I feel it is just people
> shouting louder.

OK, I see the difference.

> I believe they were presented with technical
> arguments and refused to evaluate them. They offered no
> technical counterargument. They just said "but we like META
> and we don't like LINK."

Oh, I see.

> I remain in this position because I feel I
> have a mandate to speak out on architectural issues.

Yes, of course. On the other hand, if everyone jumps one way,
consistently, then that way becomes at least worth acknowledging -
like HTML 4.0 did for the fundamentally flawed HTML Frames, for

Chris Lilley, W3C                          [ http://www.w3.org/ ]
Graphics and Fonts Guy            The World Wide Web Consortium
http://www.w3.org/people/chris/              INRIA,  Projet W3C
chris@w3.org                       2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93
+33 (0)4 93 65 79 87       06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 18 September 1997 10:50:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:08:19 UTC