Re: HTML 3.2
Wed, 8 May 1996 17:29:36 +0100 (BST)

Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: HTML 3.2
To: (Paul Prescod)
Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 17:29:36 +0100 (BST)
In-Reply-To: <> from "Paul Prescod" at May 8, 96 11:43:59 am

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

My impression is that it encourages a higher level of formalisation of
these additions than we have at the moment.   Frankly, when I have to
add a new feature to my browser because I get mail from users
requesting it, I have to sit and mess around with Netscape, trying to
work out what all the attributes do, and the exact effect - because the
users aren't satisfied unless it exactly matches Netscape (although the
users never say *which* version of Netscape they want it to imitate!)
It's no good looking on for the documentation, because
quite often it doesn't correspond with what I see on the screen with some

Personally, I don't agree with some of the stuff that has been added by
NCC, MS etc., but since they are using their dominant market position
to force the standards their way at a greater pace than W3C seems to be
able to manage, what choice does the W3C have?  Follow or disband?

Stewart Brodie, Electronics & Computer Science, Southampton University.