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

Mike Meyer (mwm@contessa.phone.net)
Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:24:52 PST


In-Reply-To: <3416C2B7.BE20C1BD@w3.org>
From: mwm@contessa.phone.net (Mike Meyer)
To: www-html@w3.org
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:24:52 PST
Message-ID: <19970910.7FAF990.9C99@contessa.phone.net>
Subject: Re: HTML4.0 draft: comments re: inclusion of frames (fwd)

> This is yet another misunderstanding of how W3C works. If you get the
> feeling that what's specified in HTML 4.0 has already been implemented
> by some vendors it's mostly because these vendors are members of W3C and
> can take advantage of this position to implement things sooner than
> others. This is one of the benefits of membership. In addition, it's
> true that some extensions may appear in vendors software before being
> part of some W3C recommendation. But there is nothing wrong with this,
> and it doesn't mean that W3C is "playing catch up". Another benefit of
> membership is to be able to submit new developments and work items to
> W3C. So it's only normal to see some vendors proprietary technology make
> their way through the W3C recommendations. It simply means it has been
> submitted to and approved by other members.

Sorry to hear that. I was under the impression that the manure
enshrined in 3.2 and 4.0 was mostly W3C's recognition that 99.9% of
the HTML authors ignore them, so they might as well formally describe
what people are doing. Such a description is a good thing, and
increases the probability that the worthwhile things bundled into the
standards will be implemented by the big two. This would allow the .1%
of the HTML authors who have information more valuable than it's
presentation to use those features.

What you just said makes it sound like said manure is the intended and
desired result of the W3C standardization process, which is indeed a
sad thing. I thought the W3C had higher standards than that.

	<mike