HTML 3.2 [was: Unique Names & content scope -Reply ]

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Mon, 06 May 1996 19:28:06 -0400


Message-Id: <m0uGZhH-0002TeC@beach.w3.org>
To: Charles Peyton Taylor <CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: HTML 3.2 [was: Unique Names & content scope -Reply ]
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 05 May 1996 18:32:18 -0800."
             <s18cf442.087@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil> 
Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 19:28:06 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <s18cf442.087@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>, Charles Peyton Taylor writes:
>
>>Favorite Peeve:
>>A document that is used by a large number of people should _not_
>>expire until an adequate substitute exists. It is rubbish that
>>the
>>HTML3 definition has expired, that is only a beaurocratic
>>idiosyncrasy and a damn nuisance!

Interesting... I didn't see him volunteer to maintain the document.

The HTML 3.0 document was created by a cast of volunteers. The
reason it went dormant was largely due to a lack of resources.

>I do wish HTML 3 had been updated as a single 
>document.

Now that W3C has funding to do this sort of thing... your wish is my
command... Please see:

	http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Wilbur/

Dan