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

Jim Wise (jw250@columbia.edu)
Tue, 4 Feb 1997 03:24:54 -0500 (EST)


Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 03:24:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Wise <jw250@columbia.edu>
To: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>
cc: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199702032358.XAA19043@curia.ucc.ie>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95L.970204031355.18895A-100000@kiaora.cc.columbia.edu>

On 3 Feb 1997, Peter Flynn wrote:

>    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.

Nonsense.  `Serious' HTML authors respect the value of the standardization
process, and realise the importance of interoperability with as many browsers
as possible.  HTML 3.0 is a defunct proto-standard, and no implementors are
making any real effort to support the whole of it.  HTML 3.2 is a statement
of current practice, and provides, as did HTML 2.0 before it, an acceptable
common denominator for the development of documents to be viewable on all
platforms.  It is reasonable to expect that a document which is in vanilla
HTML 3.2 will appear correctly on _any_ current browser within a few months
from now.  Cougar is the next step, providing a _standardized_ definition
of many of the new ideas (CSS1, <OBJECT>, possibly frames) which have been
suggested, including some which would have been part of HTML 3.0 had it been
finalized.

>    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

Valid _DTD_, sure.  Valid _standard_ no.  There are a hell of a lot of DTD's
out there which are perfectly acceptable HTML applications, but have little to
do with the ongoing HTML standardization process.  Since it's expiration date,
HTML 3.0 is one of them.

> 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.

And standards, to boot.  And *that* is the crux of the matter.

--
				Jim Wise
				jim@santafe.arch.columbia.edu
				http://www.arch.columbia.edu/~jim
				* Finger for PGP public key *