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

Matthew James Marnell (marnellm@portia.portia.com)
Tue, 07 May 1996 17:40:39 -0400


Message-Id: <199605072140.RAA07116@portia.portia.com>
To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>
Cc: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>,
Subject: Re: HTML 3.2 [was: Unique Names & content scope -Reply ] 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 07 May 1996 16:33:46 EDT."
             <m0uGtS7-0002UkC@beach.w3.org> 
Date: Tue, 07 May 1996 17:40:39 -0400
From: Matthew James Marnell <marnellm@portia.portia.com>

:>Fine: blow up my words. Overgeneralize. Create more fear, uncertainty,
:>and doubt.

Sorry if it came off as FUD.  It was an otherlarge reaction to SSDD.

:>Dave's presentation wasn't the only evidence I've seen in
:>this direction; it was just the clearest presentation of it.
:>And nobody is beholden to anybody just on Dave's word.

I also didn't mean to harsh on Dave.  He isn't the only one
espousing this particular platform, he just happens to be the
one most often mentioned, and when I was checking out the
links at:

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

I happened upon his "Balkinization" article and sundry others.

:>NO! I'm not giving up, and neither should you. YOU SHOULD CONTRIBUTE!
:>You should help make up for the fact that we get about 100000000 calls
:>about 3D animation and font/color fidelity for every 1 call we get
:>about math.

I'D LOVE TO CONTRIBUTE, ALTHOUGH A BABY THAT'S WELL OVERDUE AND A
BUSINESS AND EMPLOYEES I'M CHARGED WITH KEEPING AFLOAT PRECLUDE
ANY MEANINGFUL CONTRIBUTION.

The last time I checked out W3C, the outlay to become a member
quickly put me off becoming a part in it, and I'm sure I'm not
the only one.  While the well healed companies can well afford
to put money into it, I'm much happier reinvesting what I can
afford to back into my company.  I'm also much happier devoting
what little time I have into efforts that don't require huge
(for me and my company) outlays of hard currency but that I
consider weighty as far as the Internet goes.  I realize the
fee structure of W3C is considered a thing of necessity.

:>Please write up your experience and submit it as a W3C technical
:>report. See: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/

The list there is impressive, but no more impressive than the
initial HTML 3.0 hype.  It's so hard to tell who's in charge of
what nowadays as far as WWW standards that one can never be sure
where to put their $.02.  It's like trying to keep up with who
owns the TM for UNIX.

:>I'm sorry you feel this way. HTML 3.2 is something of a thowback.
:>It's descriptive of current practice. It's a way to get as much
:>resource as possible coordinated around the same effort.

Just pick up "HTML: The Definitive Guide" from http://www.ora.com/.
Perhaps they should draft the standard as well.

:>If you want to see our vision of the future (which certainly includes
:>math, stylesheets, ...)  please see:
:>
:>	http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Activity

It's all very impressive.  I remember being just as impressed by
the HTML 3.0 pages, and yet extremely disappointed a short while
later.  Despite my initial ill feelings toward the browser makers
with their plethora of non-standard, and for the most part, badly
thought out, tags, these are the only things that have brought about
any change in the last year.

Sorry, gotta go.  TMSTD, TLT.

Matt