Re: Interest in HTML Conformance?
burchard@geom.umn.edu
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 18:40:00 --100
Message-id: <9404180140.AA20827@mobius.geom.umn.edu>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: burchard@geom.umn.edu
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: burchard@geom.umn.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Interest in HTML Conformance?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1251
wmperry@indiana.edu (William M. Perry) writes:
> I think the most 'featureful' browser should be used as
> the standard. Which would definitely have to be the
> excellent violaWWW. It is real close to 100% HTML+
> conformance (as is emacs-w3, but in diff areas).
wmperry@indiana.edu (William M. Perry) writes:
> W3 is 100% HTML compliant and the only HTML+ support
> missing now is tables.
Really? That would be great, but I think you are exaggerating.
For example, as far as I know, none of the "alternative" browsers
implement ANY of the provisions for interactive graphical input
specified by the standards -- a fundamental limitation. There are
at least 3 to choose from:
HTML DTD 1.8:
-- INPUTs of type "image" (equivalent to HTML+ "submit")
HTML+ DTD draft 21 Mar 1994:
-- INPUTs of type "submit" with a SRC attribute
-- INPUTs of type "scribble"
I am certainly glad to see your enthusiasm for the standards, and
look forward to continued improvements in compliance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burchard <burchard@geom.umn.edu>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
--------------------------------------------------------------------