Re: Hot Metal and HTML (Peter Flynn)
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 10:31:57 EDT
Message-id: <>
Precedence: bulk
From: (Peter Flynn)
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: Hot Metal and HTML
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Implementation Group
> My worry is that if you define HTML+ not to be a superset of HTML,
> then browsers will be built which only understand HTML+, and they
> will fail on all the existing stuff. 

Quite so. Authors of existing pseudo-HTML files will _have_ to re-edit 
their stuff to bring it up to scratch. We can't have browsers hanging
around forever supporting obsolete code just for the sake of people who
won't change. Does _your_ Visual Basic grok linenumbered code written 
in Dartmouth BASIC?

> I'm afraid is *is* the same -- the phrase "HTML" has already been
> taken to refer to that stuff. We can change html+ but not HTML.
> That is, we can define a new html+ level 1,2,3
> but not a html level 2 unless it is backward compatible.

I had missed that you were making a semantic point. Sure, call it what
you will. Do I understand correctly:

     "HTML" (only, written _exactly_ like that, in CAPS)......TB-L's Classic
     "htmlplus" or "HTMLPLUS" or "HTML+" or "html+"...........DR's IETF draft
     "HTML-1" or "html-1" (with or without the hyphen)........=HTML ?
     ditto -2 ................................................mods to HTML+
     ditto -3 ................................................the longer term

> No fair switching the files :-)
> Exactly my point.  Sorry i did it accidentally.  I don't want an ad-hoc  
> commitee doing it on purpose!

Neat trick, though :-)

> > Fine: this is what I thought we were developing: text/html2
> Ok.  You agree with that proposal.  Is that agreement shared, guys?

I wish I'd been able to be in Geneva: I feel like I'm working at 2 or 3
removes from this. Boss wouldn't buy it, though (despite having picked
W3 as the CWIS bearer).

> I'd prefer Plus, as "2" sounds like a level or version number.
> Plus sounds like a superset.  (I suggested "Netbook" but dave R
> didn't like it. So we settled with  Plus).  Then at WWW94 everyone
> seemed to think that HTML+ could be made compatible with HTML,
> on the basis of whch we got all geared up into levels of HTML.
> Now they are levels of HTML+.

Sheeeeit. I've been saying for years that you can't make HTML{+|1|2|3}
compatible with HTML Classic[tm] unless you remove those very oddities 
that we have been talking about.