Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)

Once upon a time Dave Carter shaped the electrons to say...
>Rubbish, 3.2 and Cougar are not standards, the only body which has the
>right to define standards is ISO. W3C certainly doesn't. In the absence

That's bullshit.  ISO is not some godly organization - I suppose V.34
is not a modem standand because the ITU-T made it then?  RIP is not
standard because the IETF published it?  Get over it.

The IETF has handed control of HTML to the W3C -fact of life, stop whining.
And no other organization is interested in it.

>there is any standard it is HTML 2.0 (RFC1866) and tables (RFC1942).

The IETF stepped out of the picture.

>Personally I find HTML 3.2 and Cougar totally unacceptable, for a start

Too bad - if you plan on writing for anything other than a closet market
you'd better wake up.  Because the overwhelming majority of users will
not see your non-standard HTML 3.0 or HTML Pro markup.  And to encourage
their use for Internet applications is dishonest.

>they don't include <MATH>. HTML 3.0 is acceptable if incomplete. HTML

And has next to no support, even the IETF WG dismissed it.

>of taste, it is a perfectly good DTD, and any process of standardisation
>should start from it.

But it isn't.  The ONLY standardization process with any credibility
is the W3C - that is the only one the major browser makers and authoring
tool houses are going to listen to.  You can rant all you want about
HTML Pro or HTML 3.0 but it isn't going to help.

It just makes it easier to ignore you as a loony clinging to a lost
cause.

-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: 4464 Willow Road, Pleasanton, CA 94588

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 1997 07:17:11 UTC