- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:11:53 +0300
- To: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
2014-03-31 22:23, Steve Faulkner wrote: > > On 31 March 2014 19:22, Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi > <mailto:jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>> wrote: > > If you include it, why not HTML 3.0? It might have had more > influence: it was never implemented, > > > not exactly true: > > Lynx recognizes the HTML 3.0 > <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/Contents.html> BANNER container element > Lynx implements the HTML 3.0 > <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/Contents.html> FN element > Lynx implements the HTML 3.0 > <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/Contents.html> NOTE element > Lynx also recognizes the HTML 3.0 > <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/Contents.html> FIG and OVERLAY elements > + the HTML 3.0 <http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/Contents.html> FIG, > CAPTION and CREDIT elements I used to be big fan of Lynx, and I still use is occasionally. But it is really, and it always was, a niche browser. Moreover, implementing a few tags here and there does not mean implementing a language version. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Monday, 31 March 2014 21:12:17 UTC