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

Dave Carter (dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk)
Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:52:24 +0000 (GMT)


Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 08:52:24 +0000 (GMT)
From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
To: Jim Wise <jw250@columbia.edu>
cc: Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie>, www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95L.970204031355.18895A-100000@kiaora.cc.columbia.edu>
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