Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 10:31:57 EDT Message-id: <9406151424.AA08906@curia.ucc.ie> Reply-To: html-ig@oclc.org Originator: html-ig@oclc.org Sender: html-ig@oclc.org Precedence: bulk From: pflynn@oclc.org (Peter Flynn) To: Multiple recipients of list <html-ig@oclc.org> Subject: Re: Hot Metal and HTML X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: HTML Implementation Group
> My worry is that if you define HTML+ not to be a superset of HTML,
> then browsers will be built which only understand HTML+, and they
> will fail on all the existing stuff.
Quite so. Authors of existing pseudo-HTML files will _have_ to re-edit
their stuff to bring it up to scratch. We can't have browsers hanging
around forever supporting obsolete code just for the sake of people who
won't change. Does _your_ Visual Basic grok linenumbered code written
in Dartmouth BASIC?
> I'm afraid is *is* the same -- the phrase "HTML" has already been
> taken to refer to that stuff. We can change html+ but not HTML.
> That is, we can define a new html+ level 1,2,3
> but not a html level 2 unless it is backward compatible.
I had missed that you were making a semantic point. Sure, call it what
you will. Do I understand correctly:
"HTML" (only, written _exactly_ like that, in CAPS)......TB-L's Classic
"htmlplus" or "HTMLPLUS" or "HTML+" or "html+"...........DR's IETF draft
"HTML-1" or "html-1" (with or without the hyphen)........=HTML ?
ditto -2 ................................................mods to HTML+
ditto -3 ................................................the longer term
> No fair switching the files :-)
>
> Exactly my point. Sorry i did it accidentally. I don't want an ad-hoc
> commitee doing it on purpose!
Neat trick, though :-)
> > Fine: this is what I thought we were developing: text/html2
>
> Ok. You agree with that proposal. Is that agreement shared, guys?
I wish I'd been able to be in Geneva: I feel like I'm working at 2 or 3
removes from this. Boss wouldn't buy it, though (despite having picked
W3 as the CWIS bearer).
> I'd prefer Plus, as "2" sounds like a level or version number.
> Plus sounds like a superset. (I suggested "Netbook" but dave R
> didn't like it. So we settled with Plus). Then at WWW94 everyone
> seemed to think that HTML+ could be made compatible with HTML,
> on the basis of whch we got all geared up into levels of HTML.
> Now they are levels of HTML+.
Sheeeeit. I've been saying for years that you can't make HTML{+|1|2|3}
compatible with HTML Classic[tm] unless you remove those very oddities
that we have been talking about.
///Peter