Re: Paul Burchard on HTML 2.0 FORMs
"Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@oclc.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 94 15:01:11 EDT
Message-id: <9407121857.AA16659@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: Paul Burchard on HTML 2.0 FORMs
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Implementation Group (Private)
In message <9407121846.AA04511@cjho>, Chung Jen Ho writes:
>It is important to define a set of fundamental INPUT types in HTML 2.0.
>I agree to Larry's proposal which covers the missing fundamental types.
Larry's got a good point, but we're not doing any design in HTML 2.0.
We're just describing what's out there.
In HTML 2.0, we are specifyin the INPUT types that are in current
practice. End of story.
HTML 3.0 is currently in design. There's lots of talk on www-talk@info.cern.ch
about how things should work.
There are even some things that I'd like to see fixed sooner,
like in an HTML 2.1 spec or some such.
Dan