Re: "current practice"firstname.lastname@example.org (Eric W. Sink)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 15:57:16 EDT
From: email@example.com (Eric W. Sink)
To: Multiple recipients of list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: "current practice"
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)
>I think that you may want to change the operational definition of the
>working group such that HTML 2.0 represents a set of features we
>think should be in it; thse corresponded roughly to our perception of
>current practice as of the time when we made the recommendation.
This is certainly a better summary of the way we've actually gone
about doing this. When applicable, the "current practice" argument
has served us well when we needed an explanation for why we think
feature X should or should not be in the spec. In retrospect, that
argument has worked both for and against my personal ideal. I imagine
that most other members of the WG have experienced similar
sets of compromises.
Eric W. Sink, Software Engineer -- email@example.com 217-355-6000 ext 237
All opinions expressed are mine, and may not be those of my employer.
"If you have 3 SGML experts, then you have 8 opinions of what a DTD is."
-TBL, 26 July 1994