Who started "INvalidated HTML!"? -Reply

Dan, 

I read the site, and I have to say that while they 
exaggerated a bit, and the site is six months out of 
date, they did bring up a few good points.

The important point is that even though the HTML hooks 
for style sheets have changed very little in the last 
year (or is it two years already?) there is no DTD 
marked "standard" that supports them.  The references 
to HTML 4.0 always say "recommendation".  This is nice 
loophole for vendors who would claim to support all 
"standards" (but not "recommendations".) This might be 
pendantic of me, but I would prefer a "standard".

Is there any work to make HTML 4.0 an ISO standard?

And, in response to Jon Knight's message, again it 
might just be me, but 

"let them use the HTML 2.0 DTD"

sounds a lot like 

"let them eat cake"

(Granted, nobody's going to starve for the lack of a 
DTD.)

Another, less important point is that they claim that 
the W3C web pages themselves have lots of syntax errors.  
I haven't tested this myself, but if it's true, it 
would be a shame.



>>> Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> 03/13/98 08:13am >>>
>I just found a fairly elaborate web site that seems completely
>devoted to complaining about the differences between the draft
>version of HTML 3.2 and the final HTML 3.2 Recommendation.
>
>It would seem a more simple and effective to just follow the
>instructions on the draft and send their comments to www-html
>and/or www-html-editor. As far as I know, we never heard from them.

>They don't give any contact information. Anybody know how to reach
>them?
>

>--  Dan Connolly http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 13 March 1998 18:38:37 UTC