Re: Enhancements for HTML 2.1
Sat, 18 Mar 95 23:27:25 EST

Larry Masinter <> writes:
> Is there anyone else reconsidering their devotion to having a '2.1' at
> all? By the time we get 2.0 out the door, shouldn't we just be ready
> to nail down 3.0 too? I've forgotten the value of having an
> intermediate step; can someone remind me?

I think the intermediate step was intended to allow the HTML WG to catch
up with changes in current practice before dealing with HTML 3, and also
to `sneak in' some things that didn't make it in time in HTML 2.

I think, though, that you're right --- current practice has moved on, and
with at least three browsers implementing more or less of HTML 3, there's
little point doing anything inbetween.

It might be possible to punt on some of the more contentious areas of HTML 3,
if there are any. Mathematics comes to mind. So do tables, but I don't
think we can delay those any longer.

There are certainly some experimental parts of HTML 3, and it may be
necessary to put out a partial draft or something.
Perhaps we should start listing the things that are and are not agreed?

Tables - must have, work still to do
Styles - no consensus yet
Footnotes - OK
HyTime links - no consensus reached
Client-side scripting - no proposal yet
Full SGML in the client - no proposal yet
Unicode support - no consensus reached
FIG extension - OK
client side image map - no consensus reached

and so on. I am not trying to be very accurate here about the
status of each thing, only to start a list.


Liam Quin, SoftQuad Inc +1 416 239 4801   <URL:>
HexSweeper NeWS game;OPEN LOOK+XView+mf-fonts FAQs;lq-text unix text retrieval
SoftQuad HoTMetaL/HTML Editor; SoftQuad Panorama/WWW SGML Viewer
See our Web page for HoTMetaL ftp sites...