- From: MegaZone <megazone@livingston.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 13:15:09 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Daniel.Glazman@der.edfgdf.fr (Daniel Glazman)
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
Once upon a time Daniel Glazman shaped the electrons to say... >May I ask then why HTML is standardized ? Usually, standardization (or at leas >discussion) precedes implementation, right ? The current process seems to make Not in the real world. Most 'standards' are implemented first to see if they really work, then someone decides it would be a cool idea to make it a standard - possibly it gets revised: V.FC -> V.34 V.34+ MAY -> V.34bis RADIUS (Remote Authentication Dial-In User Servers) (a comm server security server) was developed in house here and used first, now is an IETF draft and used by many other companies. GIF - CompuServ first, then it became a deocumented 'standard' for the net. There are some standards that are ideas first - PNG is basically something people thought was a good idea and decided to spec it out from the ground up - but it is based directly on experience with the current image formats. HTML has *always*, since day one, had implementations ahead of the spec which were later 'standardized' and documented. It is like mountain climbing. Occasionally you drive an anchor into the rock to give yourself a firm foundation to call back on. Then you climb some more, and when you find another good level, you drive the next anchor. Wha we have is a number of forces going in different directions, all making new tags - and IMHO some of them are damn nice and some are fluff - and from time to time we skim off the cruft and document how things are, and then the next wave of creativity builds on that. Without the occasional standard level to unite browsers, we'd soon have a complete Tower of Babel with proprietary and incompatible systems. As it stands now you can write with the reasonable assumption that if your code is solid HTML 2.0, or 3.2, with or without extra tags, any browser will be able to deliver a base rendering of the document. This same thread has come up before - 3.2 was designed to provide a solid base of current implementation NOT introduce new tags. And the fact of the matter is, NS had done more to introduce new tags to wide use than other browsers. So most of the 'new' 3.2 tags is documentation of NS tags that other vendors agreed on, and some are M$ tags, and others, like tables, are distilled from the full W3C spec. With 3.2 as a base to build on, we can start working on improvements - such as SRC for lists, PLAIN, STYLE, ID, CLASS, etc and put them in '3.3' or whatever. -MZ -- Livingston Enterprises - Chair, Department of Interstitial Affairs Phone: 800-458-9966 510-426-0770 FAX: 510-426-8951 megazone@livingston.com For support requests: support@livingston.com <http://www.livingston.com/> Snail mail: 6920 Koll Center Parkway #220, Pleasanton, CA 94566
Received on Monday, 17 June 1996 16:12:27 UTC