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

Jim Wise (jw250@columbia.edu)
Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:18:00 -0500 (EST)


Date: Wed, 5 Feb 1997 00:18:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Wise <jw250@columbia.edu>
To: Subir Grewal <subir@crl.com>
cc: HTML Discussion List <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970204121751.23987A-100000@crl2.crl.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95L.970204235912.21173A-100000@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>

On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Subir Grewal wrote:

> 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.

I think this accusation is groundless.  To suggest that HTML 3.2, CSS1,
and other recent standards are a product of Microsoft and Netscape's goals
for what HTML should be is to ignore the reality of what the standards
are, and what the odd mishmash of creeping features implemented by the
major browser makers are.  In contrast to the major browser manufacturers
policies of competing incompatibility, 3.2 is a rational denominator
of what actual browsers support, and Cougar and CSS1 are clear proactive
attempts to steer HTML in a sane forward direction -- something the
browser companies seem unconcerned with.

> 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).

Designing pages for HTML 3.0 is no better than designing pages for Netscape
or MSIE.  It is a non-standard, and has no particular base of support
among existing browsers, and no reasonable expectation of succh support
in the future.  The single great advantage of designing pages in HTML,
and the reason for HTML standards to exist, is the ability to view your
content on any platform.  HTML 3.0 simply does not support this goal.

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