Re: What ever happened to <person>, <abbrev> etc. tags

Abigail (abigail@fnx.com)
Sun, 13 Apr 1997 13:31:55 -0400 (EDT)


From: abigail@fnx.com (Abigail)
Message-Id: <199704131731.NAA17509@fnx.com>
Subject: Re: What ever happened to <person>, <abbrev> etc. tags
To: galactus@htmlhelp.com (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet)
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 13:31:55 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <WWNUz4uYOFoQ089yn@htmlhelp.com> from "Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet" at Apr 13, 97 02:46:14 pm

You, Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet, wrote:
++ 
++ In article <199704130734.DAA13692@fnx.com>,
++ abigail@fnx.com (Abigail) wrote:
++ > I think 2.3 would have been a much better number. 
++ 
++ Certainly. But the marketing guys wouldn't have accepted that. "We
++ already do advanced HTML 3.0 things (like frames!), so why would we
++ advertise that we support oldfashioned stuff?"

I don't care much about the marketing guys....

++ > BTW, you can still use <person>, <abbrev>, <acronym>. It degrades
++ > gracefully on non-HTML 3.0 browsers.
++ 
++ But doesn't validate. :-(

"Doesn't validate" is not a proper statement. "Doesn't validate
against DTD X" is. If you use the HTML 3.0 DTD, it will validate.
It will validate with <URL:http://www.ny.fnx.com/abigail/abigail.dtd>
as well. And I assume it will validate with "it's all in here" HTMLPro
DTD as well.


Abigail