Re: ReComments on Cougar DTD:

Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:34:07 -0500 (EST)

Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 15:34:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Foteos Macrides <MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU>
Subject: Re: ReComments on Cougar DTD:
Message-id: <01I79FP7RXTY00009K@SCI.WFBR.EDU>

Dave Raggett <> wrote:
>>  SRC attribute for lists. Ok, this has generated long discussions on
>   this list before. Back then it was about getting it into Wilbur.
>   However, Wilbur was only supposed to document *current* practice.
>   So now in Cougar, we should get the SRC attribute in.
>>  TYPE=PLAIN for UL. If we had
>        <!ENTITY % ULStyle "plain|disc|square|circle">
>   we could write <UL PLAIN>, common practice among certain browsers
>   for some time now.
>>  CONTINUE attribute for OL. To allow for lists that are interrupted
>   by other block elements.
>>  CLEAR attributes for all block elements
>Dan Connolly and I have discussed this with vendors and without
>naming people, we met with resistance to adding the proposed changes
>to HTML.  An easier and perhaps better route for such presentation
>features will be via style sheets.

	Thank you, Dave, for posting frank information about this kind
of thing to the list.

	Regrettably, Murray Atheim's effort to discuss such problems
(appended) got derailed by another one of those Big Brother admonitions
against spreading "fair, doubt and uncertainty" amomg the sheep, and
requests that we "stay tuned" to a jammed channel.


 Foteos Macrides            Worcester Foundation for Biomedical Research
 MACRIDES@SCI.WFBR.EDU         222 Maple Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545

On Wed, 10 Jul 1996 (Murray Altheim) wrote:
In what context does "official proposal" have any meaning? You're not
dealing here with the IETF (as discussion in, where an
Internet Draft has a recognized process and procedure for public discussion
and action. W3C has no formal or even informal public process (nor has
there been any public discussion of creating one that I'm aware of), and
given that W3C members pay a great deal of money to influence design
decisions, I don't see any reason why they should do so. When HTML
development was still a public process, this forum might have had real
relevance. I don't see that now.

If there is a continuing desire for a public specification for HTML, using
a vendor consortium-sponsored listserver for that makes about as much sense
as having this same conversation in a coffee shop. The developers *might*
be listening, but they might be in a different coffee shop, or paying
attention to the conversations at their table. And note that they're not
being paid to listen to you.

There's only one public specification for HTML that I'm aware of, and
that's with the IETF. If the public believes that vendors do and will
control HTML development, then the IETF process is irrelevant. I personally
don't believe that to be the case. There MUST be some
combination/collaboration/compromise between vendors and the public. The
needs of the two overlap, but are not the same. The perception of what
sells is not necessarily what the public needs for content expression.

You really ought to consider pushing the IETF to close the current HTML
working group, and reopen a new group with a new charter and purpose that
includes your design ideas. This whole forum often seems to sound like part
of the design process for HTML, when I don't see any evidence of this being
so. Feedback on W3C specs maybe, but design, no.


     Murray Altheim, Program Manager
     Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts
     email: <>
     http:  <>