Re: HTML 3.2

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@beach.w3.org)
Wed, 08 May 1996 12:05:02 -0400


Message-Id: <m0uHBja-0002TfC@beach.w3.org>
To: Paul Prescod <papresco@itrc.uwaterloo.ca>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTML 3.2 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 May 1996 11:43:59 EDT."
             <199605081543.LAA20556@itrc.uwaterloo.ca> 
Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 12:05:02 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@beach.w3.org>

In message <199605081543.LAA20556@itrc.uwaterloo.ca>, Paul Prescod writes:
>At 11:08 AM 5/8/96 -0400, Daniel W. Connolly wrote:
>>Bingo! At least one person drew the conclusions that we intended them
>>to draw from the HTML 3.2 release materials!
>
>I'm still trying to figure out what the benefit is in formally standardizing
>an existing defacto standard. There are about a hundred books you can buy
>that will duplicate the information you are putting into "HTML 3.2".

Do they include a DTD for the markup that they describe?

Never mind the "formally standardizing" part, i.e. the ratification
mechanism: You have to give us credit for the "formally specifying"
part, i.e. the DTD that provides automated interoperability.

> The
>only benefit, in my mind, is to confer legitimacy on the browsers that
>support HTML 3.2 already, and the process they used to ram them down our
>(collective) throats.

Playing the victim doesn't get anything done.

>As I mentioned in another message, that's great for W3C, but I don't see
>what it does for the _Web_.

Point taken. I'll stipulate that HTML 3.2 adds little value to the web
in and of itself. But as you say: it's great for W3C. It puts us in a
leadership position, which is where we need to be in order to get
style sheets, <OBJECT>, forms enhancements, etc. deployed.

Dan