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

Jim Wise (jw250@columbia.edu)
Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:30:23 -0500 (EST)


Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 16:30:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Wise <jw250@columbia.edu>
To: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
cc: Subir Grewal <subir@crl.com>, HTML Discussion List <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.94.970206164053.8738B-100000@cass26>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95L.970206162158.23235A-100000@inibara.cc.columbia.edu>

On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Dave Carter wrote:

> 
> At least HTML 3.0 is a defined DTD, and there is some browser support,
> Arena, udiWWW and Emacs-W3 support various bits of html 3.0. Its not
> as cross platform as I would like, but its certainly more cross-platform
> than MSIE.
>

Lots of browsers support `bits' of HTML 3.0, just like lots of browsers
support `bits' of any of a dozen other non-standard extension sets.
Granted, the existence of a strong DTD for 3.0 makes it easier to design
for, but with the exception of Arena, which is a dead end, the full 3.0
feature set is not supported anywhere.  In addition, due to the rejection
of HTML 3.0 as a standard, it cannot be expected that more browsers will
be moving toward HTML 3.0 support.  In contrast, It is safe to assume that
the features of HTML 3.2 are available, or will very soon be available
in just all browsers, and similarly, if Cougar is standardized, it's safe
to assume that it's features will be very widely supported.

Given this lack of support, HTML 3.0 shares the disadvantages of Netscape
and MSIE `HTML' -- It's tied to a particular browser.

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