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

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Tue, 07 May 1996 10:30:46 -0400


Message-Id: <m0uGnmo-0002UIC@beach.w3.org>
To: Jonas Liljegren <a95jonas@student.adb.gu.se>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTML 3.2 [was: Unique Names & content scope -Reply ] 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 May 1996 09:32:20 EDT."
             <318F50E4.71D7@student.adb.gu.se> 
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 10:30:46 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <318F50E4.71D7@student.adb.gu.se>, Jonas Liljegren writes:
>> 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/
>
>What happend to the lang attribute?

It's not in HTML 3.2, but the whole I18N issue is definitely on
the agenda:

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

Whoops! Actually, it's not mentioned there. Ah... see:

	http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/International/Activity

Anyway... it's definitly on the agenda. There's a definite
cry for "HTML 2.0 + tables and I18N" and HTML 3.2 is very close.
I think we'll close that gap over the summer.

>Are they going to skop attributes and elements that was previous discussed?

In some cases, yes; in others, no.

This is another descriptive standard; i.e. it describes the features
that are used and supported consistently in practice, rather than
prescribing new features.

Features get introduced, and then they go through a period of
experimentation. Some survive -- users use them and other implementors
support them in a compatible fashion -- and some don't.

HTML 2.0 was an attempt to describe what was happening so that
everybody would be on the same page, and march forward together from
there.

It succeded in describing, but didn't succeed in unifying. It didn't
become the focal point for new developments.

Note that concurrent with the release of HTML 3.2, we have working
specifications for stylesheets, <object>, forms enhancements, and
other design issues:

	http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/

This shows a commitment on the part of major vendors to not just
reverse-engineer each other's extensions, but collaboratively
design new ones.

Unfortunately, we sacrificed some openness to get this buy-in.
In this high-dollar VC marketplace, vendors were uncomfortable
discussing future developments in a public forum. W3C provides
a more confidential forum, where a half-baked design idea won't
be misinterpreted as a public commitment.

We do make our specs public during the design, and we keep our ear to
the ground for public feedback. We just don't have time and resources
to address all public comments, the way it was done in the IETF
working group for HTML.

Dan