Re: HTML 2.0 specification

Terry Allen <terry@ora.com>

Mail folder: html-archive
Next message: Larry Masinter: ""current practice""
Previous message: Eric W. Sink: "Re: HTML 2.0 specification"
Maybe in reply to: Eric W. Sink: "Re: HTML 2.0 specification"
Reply: weibel@oclc.org: "HTML 2.0 specification"

Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 15:31:47 EDT
Message-id: <199409021928.MAA14397@rock>
Reply-To: terry@ora.com
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Terry Allen <terry@ora.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-wg@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: HTML 2.0 specification
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)

I concur with Eric:  let's not try to put newly implemented tags in 
2.0, else it'll never be finished.  Let's instead be prepared to do
incremental updates between 2.0 and 3.0.  That way we will achieve
a 2.0 spec (badly needed) to which patches may be applied to address
new functionality.  

About EMBED, though, is this to contain just anything at all, without
any interpretation?  what about overlong lines, characters the browser
can't render, and so forth?  why is so general a mechanism useful,
that is, for what content?

And is the TYPE="somecontent/type" attribute meant to have as its
value a MIME type?

Regards,

-- 
Terry Allen  (terry@ora.com)   Editor, Digital Media Group
O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.    Sebastopol, Calif., 95472