Re: Combined DTD - 3.2 + CSS1? (fwd)

MegaZone (megazone@livingston.com)
Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:50:01 -0700 (PDT)


Message-Id: <199704162350.QAA25448@server.livingston.com>
Subject: Re: Combined DTD - 3.2 + CSS1? (fwd)
To: www-style@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 16:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>

Once upon a time Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet shaped the electrons to say...
>The problem is that in a few months, we'd need HTML 3.4 to also add
>support for Javascript hooks, and then perhaps 3.45 for netscape frames,
>and so on.. 

I LIKE that idea though.

When anythign that impacts the DTD becomes an official recommendation
the DTD SHOULD be revved.  I strongly feel there should always be an 
official W3C DTD that represents all recommendations to date.  What is
the sense of having seperate groups for different modules when it all
ends up waiting on the HTML WG for their next rev?

It shouldn't be a lot of work, and since DTDs don't get numbers until
they are done it should have no impact on other fields.

Hell, maybe just do a review once a month - if there are any new 
recommendations that month, rev the DTD.  That way you don't rev it once
a week if lots of small things get changed, etc.

>Would it be too much asked to get an official Cougar DTD out _now_
>even though there still are things to work on? 

It would be nice - we did have a Wilbur DTD to work with that evolved.

And there *was* a Cougar DTD out, I just can't seem to find it in the
new structure (maybe they didn't link it...).

-MZ
--
Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs
Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com
For support requests: support@livingston.com  <http://www.livingston.com/> 
Snail mail: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588