Re: FONT tag

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Fri, 05 Apr 1996 22:53:04 -0500


Message-Id: <m0u5P3g-0002U5C@beach.w3.org>
To: mwm@contessa.phone.net (Mike Meyer)
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: FONT tag 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:43:04 PST."
             <19960318.75802D0.9793@contessa.phone.net> 
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 22:53:04 -0500
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <19960318.75802D0.9793@contessa.phone.net>, Mike Meyer writes:
>> Alright. I have read from many people that the HTML 3.0 draft is not
>> accurate.
>
>Um, it's a proposed standard, not a description.

Bzzzt. Nope, but thanks for playing!

	EVERYONE! PLEASE! Cite your sources!

	Stop the spread of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt!

HTML 2.0, aka RFC1866, is a proposed standard.

But you don't have to take my word for it, cuz I'll
cite a source: See:

	ftp://ds.internic.net/rfc/rfc1866.txt

HTML 3.0 was too big for the working group to swallow
all at once, and has expired. The features therein are
under discussion in smaller documents.

I'll leave it as an excercise for the reader to verify
this fact.

Dan