Re: ICADD elements in HTML
pflynn@curia.ucc.ie (Peter Flynn)
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 94 08:53:53 EDT
Message-id: <9409091248.AA06579@curia.ucc.ie>
Reply-To: pflynn@curia.ucc.ie
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: pflynn@curia.ucc.ie (Peter Flynn)
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-wg@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: ICADD elements in HTML
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)
Terry says:
> There seems to be consensus that adding the elements is the way
> to go; so I say we might as well put them into 2.0 as wait for
> 2.1. The documentation should make clear what their intended
> use is, and warn ordinary HTML users that their rendering may
> differ considerably from one WWW browser to another.
Having started out supporting Yuri's plea for ICADD isomorphism,
I'm still also motivated by Dan's concern to avoid creeping featurism.
Can we make a guess now at the future? (ie how much more do we need to
add to HTML 2.0 or 3.0 to make a theoretical 4.0 or 5.0?) I think not.
I can think of a dozen things at least that *I*'d like to see in
there but they are not really _necessary_: I think the ICADD stuff
is.
What would concern me is that we run the risk of propagating
Mosaicitis: J Random User will start to use tag X because it looks cute
in whatever local browser is in use, regardless of how it looks or
doesn't look elsewhere. You think J Random User RTFMs? :-)
///Peter