Re: Conformance ratings

Daniel W. Connolly (
Mon, 19 Feb 1996 00:13:10 -0500

Message-Id: <>
To: (Walter Ian Kaye)
Subject: Re: Conformance ratings 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 Feb 1996 01:19:19 PST."
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 00:13:10 -0500
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <>

In message <v02120d02ad45f2bdb388@[]>, Walter Ian Kaye writes:
> If you know more about
>DOCTYPEs than anyone who has posted pages at, then it is time
>for you to tell Planet Earth about your special knowledge!!!

I'm working on this issue. Stay tuned to:

> We mere
>mortals know nothing of such things, and do not know where to turn. If you,
>Mike, are the one person with the answers, please make sure we have all
>learned your secrets, okay?

For background, see the above address under "Aids to Understanding."

>The right DOCTYPE, huh? There is absolutely NO dependable documentation
>anywhere as to just what the "right" DOCTYPE is. Seems to change
>frequently, rendering any attempt to use it futile.

Hmmm... the SGML standard (ISO8879:1986) hasn't changed since 1986, and the
HTML 2.0 spec (RFC1866) hasn't changed since Nov '95.

Vendors are innovating, and if you invest in their technology before
it becomes standard (or even properly documented with a DTD), you do
so at your own risk.

Several technologies are under public review for standardization. See and for details.