Re: HTML 2.0 LAST CALL: Hyperlinking, Forms, Elements
Murray Maloney (murray@sco.COM)
Fri, 2 Jun 95 09:26:49 EDT
>
> >Evidence of consensus
> >---------------------
> >
> >On Mon, 10 Oct 1994 10:52:16 -0500 Daniel W. Connolly
> >(then connolly@hal.com) said in a thread entitled "Perceived Consensus:
> >Murray's entity stuff goes in"
> >
> > <http://www.acl.lanl.gov/HTML_WG/html-wg-94q4.messages/0048.html>:
> >
> >> Agreed: if we need names for characters, and there's an ISO entity
> >> name for the character, we'll use it.
>
> The operative word there is _will_ -- I was speaking about a minor
> revision of HTML to address a few things like © and ® and <sup>
> and <sup> that, at that time, I thought would be called 2.1. I never
> meant to imply that the HTML 2.0 DTD would change.
>
> I am inclined to hold firm on any changes to the DTD, even for the
> much-needed internationalization improvements. An internationalization
> document is needed ASAP, but I am leery of letting I18N issues delay
> 2.0 any longer.
>
I agreed with Dan at the time and I continue to agree.
Let's get 2.0 done with, OK? HTML 2.1 could contain
all of the entities that browsers will support. As far
as I know, the SCO help browser is the only browser which
supports all of the 8859-1 Latin 1 character set according
to the names listed in the SGML standard. If we can wait,
surely the rest of y'all can wait too.
Murray