Re: HTML 3.0 -Reply

Charles Peyton Taylor (
Tue, 28 May 1996 09:36:36 -0800

Message-Id: <>
Date: Tue, 28 May 1996 09:36:36 -0800
From: Charles Peyton Taylor <>
Subject:  Re: HTML 3.0 -Reply

>>> Carl Johan Berglund <> 05/27/96 11:24pm >>>
>Boleslaw Mynarski wrote:
>> Please don't take it the wrong way but I'm curious...   > Why
>bother with HTML drafts when ultimately it will be
>> the browser developers who decide what tags to use or not to?  
> > Is there any browser out there that actually
>> supports fully ANY HTML draft?
>That questions could be rewritten as "Why bother making
>standards, when everybody can choose not to use them,  anyway?"

You know, I've thought about this, and I think that
the best way of standardizing web browsers is to publish
a list of those that are up to standard, and possibly 
noting those that are not.  I think a boolean pass/fail,
possibly with notes as to why it failed, would give 
browser vendors an incentive to concentrate on producing 
web browsers that were up to spec. I think that, right now,
they are often just adding another flashy tag, or some feature
that adds another megabyte to the memory requirement.

I believe there should be a different set of standards 
for 2d gui's and text-only browsers, since there are 
things in the standard that apply only to gui browsers
(images, list item types, etc.)

>In a standards activity, we can also use the ideas from people
>who don't work for a browser vendor - like you  and me. I do also
>believe that an HTML developed as a standard will be a better
>HTML than Netscape or Microsoft could make for themselves. 

It will certainly be more cross-platform.  For-profit 
companies almost have an obligation to produce as much
profit for as little effort as possible, basically doing 
as little as they can get away with.  If a vendor doesn't 
sell  products to the blind, why would it ensure it's 
products (in this case, HTML) are blind-friendly?

>--  Carl Johan Berglund <>