Re: "current practice"

lee@sq.com

Mail folder: html-archive
Next message: Terry Allen: "Re: EMBED (Re: HTML 2.0 specification)"
Previous message: lee@sq.com: "EMBED (Re: HTML 2.0 specification)"
Maybe in reply to: Eric W. Sink: "Re: "current practice""

Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 16:53:59 EDT
Message-id: <9409022049.AA13632@sqrex.sq.com>
Reply-To: lee@sq.com
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: lee@sq.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-wg@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: "current practice"
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)


I think Larry makes an excellent point, that documenting `existing practice'
opens a can of worms.  E.g., HoTMetaL is existing practice, does that mean
our DTD is necessarily correct?  No.  And what about the Apple extensions?

So `exactly documents existing practice' could perhaps be replaced by
`does not attempt to look beyond existing practice'?

Lee

-- 
Liam Quin, Manager of Contracting, SoftQuad Inc +1 416 239 4801 lee@sq.com
HexSweeper NeWS game;OPEN LOOK+XView+mf-fonts FAQs;lq-text unix text retrieval
SoftQuad HoTMetaL: ftp.ncsa.uiuc.edu:Web/html/hotmetal, and also doc.ic.ac.uk:
packages/WWW/ncsa/..., gatekeeper.dec.com:net/infosys/Mosaic/contrib/SoftQuad/