Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)

Peter Flynn (pflynn@curia.ucc.ie)
03 Feb 1997 23:58:36 +0000 (GMT)


Date: 03 Feb 1997 23:58:36 +0000 (GMT)
From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
Subject: Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)
In-reply-to: <199701201406.GAA05300@server.livingston.com> (message from
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-id: <199702032358.XAA19043@curia.ucc.ie>

   No, it is an HTML issue too.  Those tags are not legitimate for TD with
   3.2 nor Cougar.

Both of which are either experimental or backward-looking. Neither can
in any way be considered usable for serious HTMLbrewers.

   3.0 had some nice things, it also had stuff I think was stupid.  I don't
   consider 3.0 atall valid - and since neither does the W3C nor any major
   browser maker, it doesn't make sense to.

Then you are quite wrong. HTML3 was a perfectly valid DTD, and large
chunks of it are incorporated in Cougar Just because you don't like it
doesn't make it invalid: as is obvious, I think 3.2 and Cougar suck
little black toads. But they're perfectly valid DTDs.

///Peter