Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 12:29:07 -0800 (PST) From: Subir Grewal <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: HTML Discussion List <email@example.com> Subject: Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd) In-Reply-To: <199702041216.EAA16787@server.livingston.com> Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970204121751.23987Afirstname.lastname@example.org> On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, MegaZone wrote: :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. That's because the W3C is also only listening/working with "paying" members, who (surprise surprise) happen to be the "major browser makers.." you seem to be so concerned about. So what you're saying is that Netscape, Microsoft et al are listening to themselves (and sometimes to their competition). Now, that's a revelation. Yes sireee, I've seen the light. The real question, of course, is whether the W3C could have done anything other than the above. As was clearly evident after HTML 3.0 was roundly dismissed by those same browser manufacturers, something else was necessary. Good DTDs with implementations that made sense, were faithful to the spirit of SGML and the Web were being ignored by the most "popular" browsers (and to clarify, HTML 3.0 is the standard I use when crafting pages, and it's a damn good one too). I can't say I'm particularly happy with the sort of thing that happened at the W3C, I might have been a little happier with an IETF/ITU model with a little more open discussion. All is not lost though, there are people at the W3C who are interested in listening to people who bring up interesting points, and that's a good thing. email@example.com + Lynx 2.6 + PGP + http://www.crl.com/~subir/ "I'd love to go out with you, but I have to floss my cat."