Re: new anchor type?

Ka-Ping Yee (s-ping@orange.cv.tottori-u.ac.jp)
Tue, 02 Jul 1996 00:02:02 +0900


Message-Id: <31D7E86A.27BE69B@sse.tottori-u.ac.jp>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 00:02:02 +0900
From: Ka-Ping Yee <s-ping@orange.cv.tottori-u.ac.jp>
To: "Scott E. Preece" <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
Cc: marnellm@portia.portia.com, boo@best.com, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: new anchor type? 

Scott E. Preece wrote:
> Proposed standards *are not* standards.

I did not make reference to these things as standards.  The
label "proposed standard" was used only to imply that they
were reasonably well thought-out.

> I agree that the ideas in 3.0 were mostly good and useful
> ones and I wish Netscape and Microsoft had picked more
> of them up

My message said it was a pity these things were not implemented;
no more.  You have expressed basically the same opinion here.

> The community failed to get 3.0 done and left the
> vendors free to do whatever they liked.

I guess this is a separately debatable issue.  Some would say
that the closing of the HTML-WG was not a retreat from failure.
On this, i have little to say; i only wanted to express that
i thought the ideas in HTML 3.0 had good value.
 
> Netscape is still the clear winner, and likely to remain 
> so as long as Microsoft is interested only in proprietary
> platforms (Windows and Macintosh)...

Agreed.


Ping