Re: HTML 3.2

Scott E. Preece (preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com)
Wed, 8 May 1996 12:31:47 -0500


Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 12:31:47 -0500
From: preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
Message-Id: <199605081731.MAA05998@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
To: papresco@itrc.uwaterloo.ca
Cc: connolly@beach.w3.org, www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: Paul Prescod's message of Wed, 8 May 1996 12:56:08 -0400
Subject: Re: HTML 3.2 

 From: Paul Prescod <papresco@itrc.uwaterloo.ca>
| 
| Why waste your time with the old stuff? Let's move directly to the "advanced
| stuff". In particular, a "platform for experimentation" will allow both de
| facto and de jure standards to advance much more quickly. The mass market
| will get what they want, (<FASTBLINK>) more quickly and the specialized
| markets (<MATH>) will get what they want more quickly.
---

Who's going to build the new stuff?  The spec is useless if the
community that might implement it ignores it.  There's no point in
writing a MATH spec unless somebody is prepared to build it.  We've
already been down the "spec that looks formal but isn't and doesn't get
adopted by anybody but authors" road with 3.0.  The 3.2 spec at least
gets the consensus base closer to what the IETF html-wg had reached
consensus on and gives us something to point people at as the current
best approximation of HTML reality.

I hope the 3.2 spec didn't cost a *lot* of effort, because I really
would like to see the W3C moving along with consensus standards on the
rest of tables, stylesheets, etc., too, but it really is important to
write down what you're agreed on before trying to agree on somethine
more.

scott

--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550
internet mail:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com