- From: Ka-Ping Yee <s-ping@orange.cv.tottori-u.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 00:02:02 +0900
- To: "Scott E. Preece" <preece@predator.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
- Cc: marnellm@portia.portia.com, boo@best.com, www-html@w3.org
Scott E. Preece wrote: > Proposed standards *are not* standards. I did not make reference to these things as standards. The label "proposed standard" was used only to imply that they were reasonably well thought-out. > I agree that the ideas in 3.0 were mostly good and useful > ones and I wish Netscape and Microsoft had picked more > of them up My message said it was a pity these things were not implemented; no more. You have expressed basically the same opinion here. > The community failed to get 3.0 done and left the > vendors free to do whatever they liked. I guess this is a separately debatable issue. Some would say that the closing of the HTML-WG was not a retreat from failure. On this, i have little to say; i only wanted to express that i thought the ideas in HTML 3.0 had good value. > Netscape is still the clear winner, and likely to remain > so as long as Microsoft is interested only in proprietary > platforms (Windows and Macintosh)... Agreed. Ping
Received on Monday, 1 July 1996 12:24:40 UTC