Re: DIV/ID/CLASS [was: Constructive Review Comments]

Daniel W. Connolly (
Thu, 16 May 1996 17:26:21 -0400

Message-Id: <>
To: (Murray Altheim)
Subject: Re: DIV/ID/CLASS [was: Constructive Review Comments] 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 May 1996 14:58:50 CDT."
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 17:26:21 -0400
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <>

In message <v02110103adc12c9ecb4c@[]>, Murray Altheim writes:
>Daniel W. Connolly <> writes:
>>Note that the HTML 3.2 is descriptive, and hence "enhancement
>>requests" are out of scope. There is room for discussion about how to
>>describe the current state of affairs (e.g. ways to describe things
>>like FONT, CENTER, CLASS, ...) but there is no room (in the HTML 3.2
>>review process) for enhancement requests (e.g. special entities for
>HTML 3.2 is only descriptive of the products produced by the members of
>W3C, and reflects pressure from only one segment of the Web community;

I'll say it again: the current draft represents the consensus of the
HTML ERB. Now it's up for public review.

Heck... I'll update the Wilbur page. Have a look.

> the
>"current state of affairs" is much broader than that. While I agree with
>the spirit of trying to keep feature requests in 3.2 down to a dull roar,
>stating that there is "no room" for features beyond W3C's "descriptive" DTD
>only closes the door to valid features that are simply outside the purview
>of W3C.

I already acknowledged that there's room for discussion about the
best way to describe the current situation.

Input that's not in the form of wording for the spec really isn't helpful.

>>And note that while I'm monitoring this forum to some extent, the
>>editor of the specification is not (yet). So you might want to hold
>>on to some of your comments until you see a working draft released.
>You have released a working draft of HTML 3.2 -- I seem to recall a press
>release to that effect dated May 7th.

We've concluded most of the technical discussions, and distributed
some pre-release materials. There is no working draftyet.