Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 18:55:08 -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: <Pine.SUN.3.95L.970206162158.23235Afirstname.lastname@example.org> Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970206184735.12367Bemail@example.com> On Thu, 6 Feb 1997, Jim Wise wrote: :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. Lynx contains complete support for HTML 3.0 (as much as a text browser can anyway). :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. HTML 3.0 was never "rejected", the draft expired. :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. But hold on. Why will they be supported by all browsers, and why did they end up in any standard. Clearly browser authors displayed some ingenuity as to implementing new tags that they thought authors would like. Authors responded, use became wide-spread and now a standard arrives. Well, isn't this how languages work anyway? So this is perfectly natural, and indeed a good thing? I really don't have an answer to this question, except perhaps remarking that backward compatability and platform independence are more easily sacrificed by independent browser authors; while sufficient pressure seems to have been exerted on standards setting authorities to prevent this in the past. firstname.lastname@example.org + Lynx 2.6 + PGP + http://www.crl.com/~subir/ When the government bureau's remedies do not match your problem, you modify the problem, not the remedy.