Re: Netscape tags not HTML3.0 compatible -Reply

Charles Peyton Taylor (
Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:39:52 -0800

Message-Id: <>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:39:52 -0800
From: Charles Peyton Taylor <>
Subject:  Re: Netscape tags not HTML3.0 compatible -Reply

>>>> Murray Altheim <> 03/18/96 09:42am >>>
>Dan Delaney <> writes:
>>Netscape, at this point the most popular graphics browser, isn't
going to
>>support the HTML 3.0 standards which we are attampting to set up,
>>how will we ever get any standards. [...]

Might Microsoft come to the rescue in order to eat Netscape's 
lunch?  After checking the Microsoft homepage, I see that 
they claim to be supporting W3C tables, but even then they 
are adding new attributes.  Still, at least they say they'll 
support style sheets, and that they've concluded the agreement
to add Java.

Warning: there is gratuitous cheezy marketing on this page, 
with sentences like "For the first time, a Web site will be 
limited only by its author's imagination, not by the 
limitations of the technology."

>I think you might want to back up a bit and do some homework on HTML
>It existed only as an Internet Draft (which had absolutely no status
>as a standard; 

As did HTML 2 until just recently.  Your point is moot.  Draft 
status did not keep many browser authors from implementing 
HTML 2 features long before September.

<intro to HTML 3 draft deleted>
>The HTML 3.0 draft specification expired early last fall. It is not
>considered a standard, never has been, and never will be. Work on 3.0
>has been divided into various proposals, and as stated above, it is
>inappropriate to refer to I-Ds as standards. Discussion on HTML 3.0
>has ended. Elvis has left the building.

And Stalin is dead.  Watch out, the users might get uppity.

>>Are we just waisting our time?
>>Netscape seems to have conveniently ignored certain HTML tags which
>>don't want to use. They talk all sweet and innocent "Netscape remains
>>committed to supporting HTML 3.0" But we all know that that's

>Enough already on the Netscape bashing, 

"Bashing" is when you insult someone. When you tell the truth,
I don't consider it bashing.

>and read the existing
>documentation, starting at:
>>The question is: will there ever really be a standard which all
>And to answer your question: no -- simply because the market won't sit
>still and allow the language to stabilize.

No, it's not "the market", it's the browser vendors
who don't want to implement the superior strengths of HTML 3,
like <fig>'s (and the far better means of implementing 
client-side image maps in them), Banners, and style sheets.

Instead, we get kludgey frames which practically trap the 
user into a page, <FONT> that we have to put everywhere (as 
opposed to putting it in one style sheet file), and image 
maps that are not text-compatible on the same page.  

And then they tell us to add the "this page cannot be read 
unless you are using CrashNet Pro for the 'sludge' operating 
system" paragraph with accompanying graphic on our web pages.
So then more people get CrashNet, so then more people write
for CrashNet, so then more people get CrashNet, so then more
people write for CrashNet ...

I don't want three versions of HTML.  I want an open standard,
using the powerful features that I and my peers have requested. 

I want to say "this page designed using the features of HTML 
n", as opposed to implying that the reader has to buy a 
certain browser to see my page correctly.

I am part of the market, and I want an open, 
non-proprietary standard.

>     Murray Altheim, Program Manager
>     Spyglass, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts