Re: Enhancements for HTML 2.1

Albert Lunde (
Sat, 18 Mar 1995 11:32:23 -0600 (CST)

> If at all possible, they should be added even earlier -- to the
> HTML 2.0 DTD, before the RFC is published. The change to the DTD
> is relatively minor, though these additions may require
> substantial editorial changes. At the very least, the
> <DIV> element and universal ID and CLASS attributes should be
> added to HTML 2.1.

HTML 2.0 seems like a pretty stable specification of existing
practice mid-94 with a few relatively non-controversial extensions. I'd
rather leave it that way and get it out the door.

Having a good specification of existing practice makes it a lot
clearer what the implications are when we define new stuff.

HTML 2.x for x>0 and HTML 3.0 seem better places to put new ideas.

It seems to me that a change of attributes of all tags would
fit better in HTML 3.0. The idea floated of putting tables in
HTML 2.1 in some ways seems more modular.

CLASS is one of the examples where ignoring unknown attributes
for upward compatibility makes a lot of sense. I tend to think
we should give people some clues about the semantics before
we do too much with it, or we may see mutually incompatiple
implementations doing different thinks with it.

    Albert Lunde