Re: HTML4.0 draft: comments re: inclusion of frames (fwd)

marduk wrote:
> > MZ writes:
> >    I completely disagree.  Personally I think the 3.0 proposal was bloated
> >    with more worthless crap that 3.2 or 4.0.
> I just joined this list, so I don't knwo whther this has been discussed
> before, but I see the 4.0 proposal as doing exactly what I felt the 3.2
> proposal did, mainly to keep up with what has already been implemented by
> Netscape and Microsoft and generally already accepted as "standard".
> It seems to me, that the W3C has been playing catch up for some time and
> mostly to agree with what is already being used en mass.  Unfortunately
> the W3C has, in my opinion, lost most of it's power to the top 2 and it's
> unfortunate because I believe we are now really seeing a fragmentation in
> the HTML community.

This is yet another misunderstanding of how W3C works. If you get the
feeling that what's specified in HTML 4.0 has already been implemented
by some vendors it's mostly because these vendors are members of W3C and
can take advantage of this position to implement things sooner than
others. This is one of the benefits of membership. In addition, it's
true that some extensions may appear in vendors software before being
part of some W3C recommendation. But there is nothing wrong with this,
and it doesn't mean that W3C is "playing catch up". Another benefit of
membership is to be able to submit new developments and work items to
W3C. So it's only normal to see some vendors proprietary technology make
their way through the W3C recommendations. It simply means it has been
submitted to and approved by other members.
Arnaud Le Hors - W3C, User Interface Domain -

Received on Wednesday, 10 September 1997 11:54:51 UTC