- From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 1996 17:17:32 -0500
- To: Robert Hazeltine <rhazltin@zeppo.nepean.uws.edu.au>
- Cc: Marcelo Magallon <mmagallo@efis.ucr.ac.cr>, www-html@w3.org
In message <Pine.A32.3.91.960116001622.26664A-100000@zeppo.nepean.uws.edu.au>, Robert Hazeltine writes: >> >> And before you all go (as I did) "pah, they will never implement that" look >> at the authors of the spec ... and reconsider. Times they are a changin' >> >> http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/TR/WD-insert.html > >This is good to see. But I wonder why it this particular element rather >than some of the still unsettled issues like maths? Please consider the internet technology development process: 1. Propose 2. Experiment 3. Standardize 4. Widespread deployment In the case of INSERT, there were three major vendors shipping products/betas with incompatible syntaxes for the same mechanism. That seems like a case of great urgency to me! #4 was happening before #3! Math is still at stage 2. We need more experiments, not more standards work, at this point. >> The lowest common denominator is now HTML 2.0, which defines in >> toe-curling detail the consensus of the state of HTML in around August 94. >> If you want to know what is the lowest common denominator, look there. > >May I ask when this passed from being a proposed spec to a fully fledged one? Nov 1995, with the publication of RFC1866. See: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/html-spec/ Dan
Received on Monday, 15 January 1996 17:20:52 UTC