Re: HTML 2.0 reconstruction done

Gavin Nicol (gtn@ebt.com)
Fri, 31 Mar 95 06:42:04 EST

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Paul Grosso: "Re: HTML table model suggestion"
Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: HTML 2.0 reconstruction done"
Maybe in reply to: Roy T. Fielding: "HTML 2.0 reconstruction done"
Next in thread: Murray Maloney: "Re: HTML 2.0 reconstruction done"

> If the HTML specification and SGML standard conflict,
> the SGML standard is definitive.
>
>and that is the only approach I can support. HTML is defined as

I would like to agree, but it doesn't reflect current
practise. Eventually, this must be the case, but perhaps in 2.1?

Next message: Paul Grosso: "Re: HTML table model suggestion"
Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: HTML 2.0 reconstruction done"
Maybe in reply to: Roy T. Fielding: "HTML 2.0 reconstruction done"
Next in thread: Murray Maloney: "Re: HTML 2.0 reconstruction done"