Disagree: HTML 2.0 is not text/html [Re: Hot Metal and HTML ]"Daniel W. Connolly" <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 11:27:26 EDT
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
Subject: Disagree: HTML 2.0 is not text/html [Re: Hot Metal and HTML ]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Implementation Group
In message <9406151125.AA05148@curia.ucc.ie>, Peter Flynn writes:
>> 3. The new spec is called HTML+ or HTML2 but not text/html.
>Fine: this is what I thought we were developing: text/html2
>I'm not arguing with anything you said: I just think we should get away
>(and get the users away) from practices which I believe are not conducive
>to the success of WWW and to the general move in the direction of SGML
>becoming more widely-used. We keep the separator in HTML(1) but as that
>is superseded, HTML(n) [n>1] uses a container.
The 2.0 spec is _descriptive_ of the HTML that's out there. We're not
making up something new. Any of tim's other proposals is preferable
to this. I'll address them in separate messages.
But we need to keep in mind the migration path from HTML 2.0 to
whatever else comes up. It seemed like we could include HTML+ features
in future HTML specifications through this level mechanism. If that's
not the case, fine. But let's think it through.
>From http://www.hal.com/%7Econnolly/html-spec/HTML.html :
About of this Document
This document describes the current practice and current
proposals for future standardisation of HTML, as a basis for
review and enhancement.
>From http://www.hal.com/%7Econnolly/html-spec/notes/PubHistory.html :
1994 June: HTML 2.0 Spec Review; Dan Connolly and Tim Berners-Lee
This is an effort to create a specification for use in the
near-term development of commercial implementations of
HTML. The plan is that it will be published as an SGML Open