Message-Id: <9602200736.AA25042@orion> To: MegaZone <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: email@example.com Subject: Re: Conformance ratings (was: Extra! Microsoft beats Netscape in the race for non-conformance!) (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 19 Feb 1996 16:21:07 PST." <199602200021.QAA20740@server.livingston.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 23:36:53 -0800 From: Mike Wexler <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Once upon a time Daniel W. Connolly shaped the electrons to say... > >If the extension documentation was accompanied by a DTD, the validation > >systems could stay up-to-date trivially. > > This is something I do feel needs to be addressed. I don't think there is > any problem with vendor extensions, but I do believe the vendor is then > responsible to generate a DTD to cover them. Each each vendor has a DTD and a corresponding doctype, the multivendor problem has a relatively easy solution. The content negotiation. The browser says (I accept pages that are in HTML 2, HTML 3, NS-HTML 2.0, or MSIE-HTML 3.17.2B-1996. The server can then supply a page in the proper form of HTML. Server side includes and ifdefs can be used to keep from having N copies of each document. Also if every vendor provides DTDs, the jobs of standards groups becomes easier. At least in some cases it can be just a matter of reconciling the different DTDs (who cares what the page actually looks like :-).