"current practice"

• Mail folder: html-archive
• Next message: weibel@oclc.org: "HTML 2.0 specification"
• Previous message: Terry Allen: "Re: HTML 2.0 specification"
• Reply: Eric W. Sink: "Re: "current practice""

Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 15:39:07 EDT
Message-id: <94Sep2.123522pdt.2760@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Reply-To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-wg@oclc.org>
Subject: "current practice"
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)

I will point out that if you officially say that your task is to
"document common current practice", you leave yourself open to the
kinds of recent arguments which have arisen lately of the form: "so
and so browser implements this, has for months, and thus it is common
practice". 

I think that you may want to change the operational definition of the
working group such that HTML 2.0 represents a set of features we
think should be in it; thse corresponded roughly to our perception of
current practice as of the time when we made the recommendation.

Individuals may then want to argue for additional features in HTML 2.0
anyway, but whether or not someone has implemented it in a browser
shouldn't be the leading term; whether or not there are a large number
of servers and documents out already that use the feature is probably
of higher importance, for example.