Re: More syntax details in HTML 2.0?

Tim Pierce (
Wed, 14 Jun 95 13:17:56 EDT

> > I guess I'll defer this work -- put it in an "HTML implementors guide"
> > as suggested (and as I started back in Jan of 1992).
> Thanks. I think an implementor's guide would be a very good thing to have.
> Clearly, we've got a nice spread of implementation experience gathered
> together here, with a lot of good tips on what works, what doesn't, what
> to watch out for, and what to avoid.

That makes sense. Although the objections to expanding on
SGML syntax make sense to me intellectually, I get a real
screaming horror at the idea of describing HTML in terms of
a standard whose definition is not as freely available as an
RFC or IETF draft. If we want to encourage people to write
conforming clients, we must make the standard (or at least
the implementation guidelines) as straightforward as
possible. Otherwise, people won't bother and will get it
all wrong.