Re: %flow and headers and address

Peter Flynn (pflynn@curia.ucc.ie)
28 Sep 1996 23:08:44 +0100


Date: 28 Sep 1996 23:08:44 +0100
From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
Subject: Re: %flow and headers and address
In-reply-to: <aJYTy4uYOJma089yn@htmlhelp.com> (galactus@htmlhelp.com)
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-id: <199609282208.XAA18525@curia.ucc.ie>

   Try explaining THAT to the clueless crowds out there who still yell
   that "HTML 3.0 standard" is the latest and greatest, and who are
   convinced that HTML 2.0 means no images and only <P> and <Hn>.

The former I have encountered, but not the latter. Sigh.

   > Moot anyway, in view of James Clark's talk at Princeton on Thursday...

   Sorry, he forgot to invite me.. :-) What was it about?

The first report I read has since been the subject of an alternative
view, and two further reports have been slightly different, so perhaps
impressions vary (although not much). 

The gist of it was a declaration that Netscape is committed to
standards, but Mr Clark then muddied the waters with a comment about
the IETF, variously quoted as "in the real world, standards don't make
money: money drives standards" and "standards don't drive volume,
volume drives standards" (both of which are wrong anyway: it's
consumer choice usually, aided by money to kid them :-) 

He was also apparently less than forthcoming about SGML, and
unwilling to make any statement other than to refer it to Marc
Andreessen (who I think has other things to do). 

It is instructive to compare this with his talk at CERN earlier in the
year, when he made it clear that standards were something that should
be set by companies, on a proprietary basis, and not something that
should be debated publicly, let alone decided publicly.

///Peter