Re: HTML 3.2

In message <>, Paul Prescod writes:
>At 11:08 AM 5/8/96 -0400, Daniel W. Connolly wrote:
>>Bingo! At least one person drew the conclusions that we intended them
>>to draw from the HTML 3.2 release materials!
>I'm still trying to figure out what the benefit is in formally standardizing
>an existing defacto standard. There are about a hundred books you can buy
>that will duplicate the information you are putting into "HTML 3.2".

Do they include a DTD for the markup that they describe?

Never mind the "formally standardizing" part, i.e. the ratification
mechanism: You have to give us credit for the "formally specifying"
part, i.e. the DTD that provides automated interoperability.

> The
>only benefit, in my mind, is to confer legitimacy on the browsers that
>support HTML 3.2 already, and the process they used to ram them down our
>(collective) throats.

Playing the victim doesn't get anything done.

>As I mentioned in another message, that's great for W3C, but I don't see
>what it does for the _Web_.

Point taken. I'll stipulate that HTML 3.2 adds little value to the web
in and of itself. But as you say: it's great for W3C. It puts us in a
leadership position, which is where we need to be in order to get
style sheets, <OBJECT>, forms enhancements, etc. deployed.


Received on Wednesday, 8 May 1996 12:05:05 UTC