Re: HTML4.0 draft: comments re: inclusion of frames (fwd)

Jordan Reiter (
Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:48:44 -0500

Message-Id: <l03110707b03b6b8842fa@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 16:48:44 -0500
To: (Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet)
From: Jordan Reiter <>
Subject: Re: HTML4.0 draft: comments re: inclusion of frames (fwd)

At 12:37 PM -0500 1997-09-09, Arnoud "Galactus" Engelfriet wrote:
>In article <>,
>jptxs <> wrote:
>> what sort of bubble do you suppose the making of standards, coding or
>> otherwise, takes place in?  sorry to stray off topic to all, but really,
>> not bowing to the reality of how this process is carried out is not
>> productive.
>The problem here is that "reality" mostly means "Whatever Netscape
>comes up with", as far as new HTML extensions are concerned. Given
>their history of strange extensions, that's not really a good way
>to work on a new standard.

Oh, I don't know--I think Marc Andreessen and/or Netscape Inc. came up with
some pretty clever HTML ideas.  You know, some obscure elements like:

<IMG> [1]
<FONT> (I know it's deprecated, but it was good while it lasted)

Now, if you want to talk about *strange*, look at Microsoft; <MARQUEE> and
<BGSOUND> seem to be their only really memorable elements

All browser makers are guilty of creating elements in order to further the
functionality or visuality of HTML.  Netscape just happened to come up with
some clever ones.  I can't think of any really useless Netscape elements,
except perhaps <MULTICOLS>, which still was fairly impressive anyway, even
for an unused element.

[                    Jordan Reiter                     ]
[                 ]
[ "You can't just say, 'I don't want to get involved.' ]
[  The universe got you involved."  --Hal Lipset, P.I. ]