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

Dave Carter (
Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:52:24 +0000 (GMT)

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:52:24 +0000 (GMT)
From: Dave Carter <>
To: Jim Wise <>
cc: Peter Flynn <>,
Subject: Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.94.970204084740.22520E-100000@cass26>

On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Jim Wise wrote:

> 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.

Rubbish, 3.2 and Cougar are not standards, the only body which has the
right to define standards is ISO. W3C certainly doesn't. In the absence
of ISO activity in this area I suppose the best we have is IETF, so if
there is any standard it is HTML 2.0 (RFC1866) and tables (RFC1942).
Personally I find HTML 3.2 and Cougar totally unacceptable, for a start
they don't include <MATH>. HTML 3.0 is acceptable if incomplete. HTML
Pro includes things I would find unacceptable to use, but thats a matter
of taste, it is a perfectly good DTD, and any process of standardisation
should start from it.

Dave Carter