- From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 16:50:11 +0200 (MET)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Cc: www-html-editor@w3.org, ij@w3.org
On Sep 17, 2:37pm, Dan Connolly wrote: > Those are all identified as links by the spec (except A NAME). It's a head anchor, I thought it qualified as a link. > Don't forget <form METHOD=GET ACTION="...">. Right. And as you say, HTML 2.0 identifies even more > > I hope that you don't really feel that group agreement is just "people > > shouting louder" > > Not in all cases, but in this case, I feel it is just people > shouting louder. OK, I see the difference. > I believe they were presented with technical > arguments and refused to evaluate them. They offered no > technical counterargument. They just said "but we like META > and we don't like LINK." Oh, I see. > I remain in this position because I feel I > have a mandate to speak out on architectural issues. Yes, of course. On the other hand, if everyone jumps one way, consistently, then that way becomes at least worth acknowledging - like HTML 4.0 did for the fundamentally flawed HTML Frames, for example. -- Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ] Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C chris@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 18 September 1997 10:50:31 UTC