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

Dave Carter (dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk)
Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:09:44 +0000 (GMT)


Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:09:44 +0000 (GMT)
From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
To: Jim Wise <jw250@columbia.edu>
cc: Subir Grewal <subir@crl.com>, HTML Discussion List <www-html@w3.org>
Subject: Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.95L.970208222612.25744A-100000@konichiwa.cc.columbia.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.94.970210085557.13096A-100000@cass26>



On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jim Wise wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Dave Carter wrote:
> 
> Nonsense.  HTML 3.2 is a W3C standard ('recommendation').  HTML 3.0 never
> made it that far, and never will.

Well I don't know whether W3C actually said 3.0 was a recommendation, but
it was a draft with their endorsement. It never got submitted to IETF, and
neither has 3.2. So I don't see the difference.

> 
> > for two things, first it is less sophisticated therefore less difficult
> > to implement, and second two particular manufacturers have paid W3C money
> > to make sure that their dross replaces some of the advanced features of
> > HTML 3.0. Why should browser manufacturers implement it except for two??
> 
> Again, this accusation is groundless, and insulting.  Even a cursory look
> at the W3C's record will show that it's past and present standardization
> efforts have strove to provide clean approaches to the features users,
> authors, _and_ browser implementors demand, rather than bowing to the
> toy feature sets of the big browser vendors.  Where are W3c frames? <BLINK>?
> <MARQUEE>?  What browser manufacturer pushed for CSS1?  PICS?  <OBJECT>?
> Yet now, you are asking that the W3C abandon this goal because it has
> rejected a browser-dependent feature set that you like...
> 

No, I am asking that W3C return to its very admirable goals of two years
ago. W3C pushed for many of the things you mention IN THE HTML 3.0 DRAFT.
<FIG> evolved into object. CSS1 was pioneered by W3C in Arena. <BANNER>
was a superior implementation of what frames are mainly used for, now
sadly dropped. But my main complaint is that the biggest advance of all
that W3C made in HTML 3.0, <MATH>, was then dropped. And <MATH> was quite
capable of cross-platform implementation. So 3.2 was a big step backwards,
and Cougar a step sideways in a direction much more dictated by browser
vendors than users. 

It may be that the problem with <MATH> is more the fault of vendors of
mathematical packages than browser vendors. The implementation was
criticised for being presentation oriented. How this is different with
words I do not understand.

What can be more platform dependent than <FONT>??? So why is this in 3.2
if W3C is still interested in cross-platform interoperability. 


> Naturally, any body is welcome to enter the standardization fray.  The fact
> is, they haven't.  The W3C, however, has done an admirable job of promoting
> platform independence and interoperability, and of providing a clean,
> consistent standardization of those features most requested by authors,
> browser implementors, and users.
> 

I think you and I want the same things, but maybe you don't remember where
we were two years ago, and where we could have been now.


Dave Carter