Re: Conformance ratings (was: Extra! Microsoft beats Netscape in the race for non-conformance!) (fwd

Mike Wexler (mwexler@frame.com)
Mon, 19 Feb 1996 23:36:53 -0800


Message-Id: <9602200736.AA25042@orion>
To: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
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 <mwexler@frame.com>


> 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 :-).