Re: HTML heading for the grave ?????

Brian Behlendorf (brian@wired.com)
Wed, 26 Oct 1994 19:46:51 -0700 (PDT)


Date: Wed, 26 Oct 1994 19:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@wired.com>
To: Ernie Quah Cheng Hai <chenghai@ncb.gov.sg>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <www-html@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: HTML heading for the grave ?????
In-Reply-To: <9410261045.AA15811@ncb.gov.sg>
Message-Id: <Pine.BSI.3.91.941026194427.17068G-100000@get.wired.com>

On Thu, 27 Oct 1994, Ernie Quah Cheng Hai wrote:
> My colleagues told me I would be stupid if I started marking up anything in
> HTML now as HTML+ browsers when widely deployed in 2 years time would
> render my documents obsolete and totally useless. 
> 
> According to them, HTML+ would not be backward compatible with HTML level 1
> and Level 2 (what I would be using).

Wrong.  HTML 2.0 browsers will have difficulty with HTML 3.0 documents, 
but with an intelligent server HTML 2.0 browsers will never have to see 
HTML 3.0 documents.  HTML 3.0 browsers will be able to view all HTML 2.0 
documents, for almost all valid HTML 2.0 documents are valid HTML 3.0 
documents (and I'm sure browsers will be liberal around the edges too).

	Brian