Re: Any hope of an interim spec?

nemo/Joel N. Weber II (devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu)
Sun, 9 Mar 1997 01:33:49 -0500 (EST)


Date: Sun, 9 Mar 1997 01:33:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199703090633.BAA06670@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
From: "nemo/Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
To: megazone@livingston.com
CC: www-html@w3.org
In-reply-to: <199703080325.TAA29293@server.livingston.com> (message from
Subject: Re: Any hope of an interim spec?

   Date: Fri, 7 Mar 1997 19:25:39 -0800 (PST)
   From: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
   Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal of the Accursed Saint Shiranto Joe

   It shouldn't take much to roll in these known tags/attributes into 3.2
   and issue it as an interim spec.  3.2 will be there for those who want to
   be 'safe' with established systems, and '3.3' would be for those who want
   to start using new things yet ensure validity.

   I won't even argue for new tags lige BGCOLOR on TD|TH, etc.  Just something
   that collates these seperate standards into something usable we can point
   to and check our work against.

All you're really asking for is repackaging.

Browser writers have a lot of trouble tracking down all the specs they
need to implement, in my experience; but we can easily find those few
specs you mention.

I think what you're really looking for is a DTD that you can validate
against, right?  Can you use HTML Pro?

Or is there something else I'm missing?