- From: Arnoud <galactus@htmlhelp.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:16:55 +0200
- To: www-html@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <199609241139.MAA11209@curia.ucc.ie>, Peter Flynn <pflynn@curia.ucc.ie> wrote: > I'm producing a composite HTMLX.DTD which will replace this and much > else, as I see no good reason why advanced users of HTML should be > penalised by 3.2 Then why aren't you using the Cougar DTD instead? HTML 3.2 is only intended as a replacement for HTML 2.0, not for 3.0. As I said on c.i.w.a.h., can we finally stop the "3.2 is less than 3.0!" debate and start working on something useful? Galactus - -- E-mail: galactus@htmlhelp.com .................... PGP Key: 512/63B0E665 Maintainer of WDG's HTML reference: <http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/> -----END PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 1996 13:32:13 UTC