- From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:09:44 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Jim Wise <jw250@columbia.edu>
- cc: Subir Grewal <subir@crl.com>, HTML Discussion List <www-html@w3.org>
On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jim Wise wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Dave Carter wrote:
>
> Nonsense. HTML 3.2 is a W3C standard ('recommendation'). HTML 3.0 never
> made it that far, and never will.
Well I don't know whether W3C actually said 3.0 was a recommendation, but
it was a draft with their endorsement. It never got submitted to IETF, and
neither has 3.2. So I don't see the difference.
>
> > for two things, first it is less sophisticated therefore less difficult
> > to implement, and second two particular manufacturers have paid W3C money
> > to make sure that their dross replaces some of the advanced features of
> > HTML 3.0. Why should browser manufacturers implement it except for two??
>
> Again, this accusation is groundless, and insulting. Even a cursory look
> at the W3C's record will show that it's past and present standardization
> efforts have strove to provide clean approaches to the features users,
> authors, _and_ browser implementors demand, rather than bowing to the
> toy feature sets of the big browser vendors. Where are W3c frames? <BLINK>?
> <MARQUEE>? What browser manufacturer pushed for CSS1? PICS? <OBJECT>?
> Yet now, you are asking that the W3C abandon this goal because it has
> rejected a browser-dependent feature set that you like...
>
No, I am asking that W3C return to its very admirable goals of two years
ago. W3C pushed for many of the things you mention IN THE HTML 3.0 DRAFT.
<FIG> evolved into object. CSS1 was pioneered by W3C in Arena. <BANNER>
was a superior implementation of what frames are mainly used for, now
sadly dropped. But my main complaint is that the biggest advance of all
that W3C made in HTML 3.0, <MATH>, was then dropped. And <MATH> was quite
capable of cross-platform implementation. So 3.2 was a big step backwards,
and Cougar a step sideways in a direction much more dictated by browser
vendors than users.
It may be that the problem with <MATH> is more the fault of vendors of
mathematical packages than browser vendors. The implementation was
criticised for being presentation oriented. How this is different with
words I do not understand.
What can be more platform dependent than <FONT>??? So why is this in 3.2
if W3C is still interested in cross-platform interoperability.
> Naturally, any body is welcome to enter the standardization fray. The fact
> is, they haven't. The W3C, however, has done an admirable job of promoting
> platform independence and interoperability, and of providing a clean,
> consistent standardization of those features most requested by authors,
> browser implementors, and users.
>
I think you and I want the same things, but maybe you don't remember where
we were two years ago, and where we could have been now.
Dave Carter
Received on Monday, 10 February 1997 04:09:41 UTC