Re: HTML 3.0 -Reply

Charles Peyton Taylor (CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil)
Thu, 30 May 1996 14:16:14 -0800


Message-Id: <s1adadd1.026@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
Date: Thu, 30 May 1996 14:16:14 -0800
From: Charles Peyton Taylor <CTaylor@wposmtp.nps.navy.mil>
To: www-html@w3.org
Subject:  Re: HTML 3.0 -Reply



>>> Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com> 05/28/96 09:32pm >>>
>This reminds me... sometime last year, there was talk about
>W3C-branding, where there would be some kind of logo -- sort of
>like Adobe's true
>PostScript logo (the page curling up from a computer screen) or
>Underwriter's Laboratories' (UL) logo. Seems to me that customer
>demand could be created for such an accreditation, and perhaps
>"the Wilbur concession" could be used as a steppingstone towards
>that...
>Dan, did anything ever come of the logo talk?

This would be really cool, if it ever came about, 
and if it were based on standards, and not just a 
reverse-engineering of what browsers were doing. 

It reminds me of those "Yes, it works with Netware" 
symbols that you see in trade magazines.  You know you 
can buy that product and it will work with your server 
(if you are running Netware, of course.)  

People could put that on their web sites instead 
of advertisements for whatever browser. On the other 
hand, I suppose people should try to write HTML that 
is compatible with older browsers.

But from a consulting perspective, it would be nice to
tell customers "you should use a browser that is 
W3C-listed" rather than "you should download *X* 
browser"

>_________________________________________________________________
>________
>    Walter Ian Kaye <boo@best.com>     Programmer - Excel,
>AppleScript,
>          Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM,
>FoxPro, HTML
> http://www.natural-innovations.com/     Musician - Guitarist,
>Songwriter