Re: Appropriate uses of the Final HTML 2.0 Document
"Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@oclc.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 94 10:44:02 EDT
Message-id: <9406201441.AA05868@ulua.hal.com>
Reply-To: html-ig@oclc.org
Originator: html-ig@oclc.org
Sender: html-ig@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@oclc.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-ig@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: Appropriate uses of the Final HTML 2.0 Document
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Implementation Group
In message <9406201244.AA00834@hook.spyglass.com>, Eric W. Sink writes:
>
>After we "finalize" the HTML 2.0 spec documents, I would like to produce an
>annotated version for Mosaic.
[...]
> For example, in the section on IMG
>elements, we may want to mention the specific list of formats which are
>supported.
>
[...]
>Does this seem like an appropriate use of the document, once it is complete?
My thoughts went "Yes... er No, but... Well, I guess so."
Yes: I think vendors should use the HTML 2.0 spec in their document to
say things like "We do HTML 2.0, and in particular, we treat these
implementation-defined behaviours this way..." That's the whole
purpose for this excercise, IMHO.
No: On the other hand, what does the supported image formats have to
do with HTML? It seems like a largely orthogonal issue.
Well, I guess so: There should be a "browser spec" or some other
document that says how a WWW User Agent should work. But there
isn't. So I guess it's not too ugly to hang all sorts of tenuously
relavent issues off of this document.
Dan