- From: Abigail <abigail@fnx.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 03:34:24 -0400 (EDT)
- To: walter@natural-innovations.com (Walter Ian Kaye)
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
You, Walter Ian Kaye, wrote: ++ ++ On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' wrote: ++ ++ > Somewhere between 3.0 and 3.2 a bunch of 'logical' tags like <person> ++ > <abbrev> and <acronym> were removed. ++ ++ Actually, nothing was removed from 3.0 -- it simply withered away and died. ++ 3.2 does not linearly replace 3.0, it simply follows it numerically. I know ++ this doesn't make sense to you; it doesn't really make sense to anyone else ++ either! It's just the way things turned out, for a variety of reasons. ++ ++ HTML 3.0 was designed by committee; 3.2 grew from the marketplace. You could ++ think of an immovable object (committee desires) meeting an irresistible force ++ (the market, aka NCC and MS), and the result is an unfortunate nonlinearity in ++ the development of HTML. I think 2.3 would have been a much better number. BTW, you can still use <person>, <abbrev>, <acronym>. It degrades gracefully on non-HTML 3.0 browsers. Abigail
Received on Sunday, 13 April 1997 03:34:20 UTC