W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1997

RE: A single specification

From: Chapman, Hass <hass.chapman@sebank.se>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:13 +0200
Message-Id: <199708201124.NAA04183@se2000.sebank.se>
To: neil@telekinesys.co.za, www-dom@w3.org, www-html@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
A great idea! I support this wholeheartedly.
>From: Neil Murray
>To: www-html; www-style; www-dom
>Subject: A single specification
>Date:  den 20 August 1997 08:37
>I would like to suggest/propose a unified, modular specification for the
>following languages / specifications / options:
>- HTML 4.0
>- CSS1
>- The DOM (Document Object Model)
>- ECMAScript (Formerly JavaScript)
>- DOM / ECMAScript integration rules
>- Other interpreted presentation / application options
>The current HTML 4.0 specification provides extensive support for the
>integration of style sheets and scripting but does not include the style
>and script specifications themselves. This could set up conditions where
>browser vendors claim HTML 4.0 support without supporting any of the
>implied style and script extensions.
>Another problem could arise where browser vendors implement vendor specific 

>languages which would not support access to the DOM in a standard form.
>If a new specification (Unified Browser Language (UBL) for example) or a
>unified all consuming HTML specification were created to incorporate these
>existing and emerging standards, then a clearer direction could be given to 

>browser vendors.
>The UBL could be broken down into various levels which would define browser 

>capability very clearly.
>UBL 0 (Standard HTML, No Scripts, No Styles)
>UBL 1 (Style sheet extensions to HTML and style sheet interpreter)
>UBL 2 (Scripting extensions to HTML and complete script interpreter)
>Devices like WebTV, Windows CE Devices, Nokia 9000's etc. would probably
>support "UBL 0" or "UBL 0/1" for "presentation/publishing" only. More
>advanced devices might support "UBL 0/1/2" or "UBL 0/2" and so on for
>application purposes.
>A unified specification would also provide less leeway for vendors like
>Microsoft and Netscape because the various language interfaces would be
>fully described. Extensions to the UBL could then easily be presented and
>added with embedded HTML extension so that the base HTML spec would not
>have to go through as many revisions.
>I don't think XML will provide the kind of extension support required here.
>Neil Murray
>Telekinesys (SA) (Pty) Ltd
>Telephone: +27 (0)11 3155964
>Your commercial web applications are ready!
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 1997 07:24:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:44 UTC