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

Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Tue, 04 Feb 1997 10:55:13 -0400


Message-ID: <32F74DD1.6B4A48C7@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 10:55:13 -0400
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
To: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
CC: www-html@w3.org
Subject: Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)

MegaZone wrote:

> >there is any standard it is HTML 2.0 (RFC1866) and tables (RFC1942).
> 
> The IETF stepped out of the picture.

More accurately, folks stopped participating in the IETF working
group on HTML.
As Larry M. is fond of saying, "There's no 'they' over there."
It's misleading to attribute actions to the IETF as a whole.

> >of taste, it is a perfectly good DTD, and any process of standardisation
> >should start from it.
> 
> But it isn't.  The ONLY standardization process with any credibility
> is the W3C - that is the only one the major browser makers and authoring
> tool houses are going to listen to.  You can rant all you want about
> HTML Pro or HTML 3.0 but it isn't going to help.

Not so fast! It seems to me that the HTML Pro work is generating a
lot of valuable interest. If W3C weren't interested in things like
HTML Pro -- things where folks who don't like the status quo DO
SOMETHING ABOUT IT -- then we'd shut this list down straight away.

For every one message about experience developing HTML Pro, webtk,
grail, and the like, I'll wade through ten "how do I get frames
to work" messages.

Dan