Re: HTextArea form element
Gary.Adams@oclc.org (Gary Adams - Sun Microsystems Labs BOS)
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 94 16:19:27 EDT
Message-id: <9406292018.AA13204@zeppo.East.Sun.COM>
Reply-To: html-ig@oclc.org
Originator: html-ig@oclc.org
Sender: html-ig@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Gary.Adams@oclc.org (Gary Adams - Sun Microsystems Labs BOS)
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-ig@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: HTextArea form element
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Implementation Group (Private)
> From html-ig@oclc.org Wed Jun 29 16:05:15 1994
>
> >You'll notice it's labelled "Proposed" (though evidently not too clearly).
>
> OOPS! Yes, you're right. Sorry about that.
>
> >I'm willing to take all the "proposed" noise out of the HTML 2.0 spec,
> >but it was TimBL's idea to stick in in there in the first, place, so
> >I'd like to hear from him first.
>
> My preference would indeed be to remove the "proposed" stuff altogether.
If all of the PROPOSED elements were published in a separate document the
confusion would only be displaced to the HTML 3.0 vs. PROPOSED elements
document.
On the other hand if the PROPOSED elements were relegated to an Appendix of
Future considerations, then it would be clearer that these elements do not
reflect current practice, but are guiding principals for future spec writers
and browser developers.
Unfortunately, the more well defined the PROPOSED elements are, the more the
casual reader will believe that the syntax for these elements has been
agreeded upon. In a sense it might be better if the PROPOSED elements were
only mentioned in a descriptive fashion, rather than fully prescribed.