Re: HTML

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@hal.com)
Sat, 15 Oct 1994 12:57:58 -0500

In message <199410150230.DAA11119@curia.ucc.ie>, Peter Flynn writes:
>
>a. What you have implemented is, quite frankly, rubbish as far as
> HTML is concerned. You have effectively shat all over the hard
> work that many people, including yourself, have put in over the
> last two years, by implementing nonsense that will not parse and
> flies in the face of any logical approach to text markup.

Take this sort of thing to some other forum, please.

What I presented was a factual account of the additions to HTML
implemented by mcom. Can we safe the philosophical and even technical
judgements of merit until later? I just wanted to keep folks up to
date. My "they're either too busy or not interested" comment carried
some connotations that were out of place.

Let's stick to the business of this forum, which is the 2.0 document,
please.

Or are we prepared to jump into the 2.1/3.x disucssions?

[Where's the chair when you need him? :-]

Dan