Re: microsoftisms after netscapeisms ?

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Mon, 15 Jan 1996 17:17:32 -0500


Message-Id: <m0tbxDY-0002RmC@beach.w3.org>
To: Robert Hazeltine <rhazltin@zeppo.nepean.uws.edu.au>
Cc: Marcelo Magallon <mmagallo@efis.ucr.ac.cr>, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: microsoftisms after netscapeisms ? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Jan 1996 00:21:33 +1000."
             <Pine.A32.3.91.960116001622.26664A-100000@zeppo.nepean.uws.edu.au> 
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 17:17:32 -0500
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <Pine.A32.3.91.960116001622.26664A-100000@zeppo.nepean.uws.edu.au>, 
Robert Hazeltine writes:
>> 
>> And before you all go (as I did) "pah, they will never implement that" look
>> at the authors of the spec ... and reconsider. Times they are a changin'
>> 
>>   http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-insert.html
>
>This is good to see.  But I wonder why it this particular element rather 
>than some of the still unsettled issues like maths?

Please consider the internet technology development process:
1. Propose
2. Experiment
3. Standardize
4. Widespread deployment

In the case of INSERT, there were three major vendors shipping
products/betas with incompatible syntaxes for the same mechanism.
That seems like a case of great urgency to me! #4 was happening
before #3!

Math is still at stage 2. We need more experiments, not more
standards work, at this point.

>> The lowest common denominator is now HTML 2.0, which defines in 
>> toe-curling detail the consensus of the state of HTML in around August 94.
>> If you want to know what is the lowest common denominator, look there.
>
>May I ask when this passed from being a proposed spec to a fully fledged one?

Nov 1995, with the publication of RFC1866.

See:

	http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/html-spec/

Dan