Re: microsoftisms after netscapeisms ?

In message <>, 
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'
>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.



Received on Monday, 15 January 1996 17:20:52 UTC