Re: More syntax details in HTML 2.0?
Tim Pierce (twpierce@midway.uchicago.edu)
Wed, 14 Jun 95 20:27:18 EDT
> Tim Pierce writes:
>
> That makes sense. Although the objections to expanding on SGML
> syntax make sense to me intellectually, I get a real screaming
> horror at the idea of describing HTML in terms of a standard whose
> definition is not as freely available as an RFC or IETF draft. If
> we want to encourage people to write conforming clients, we must
> make the standard (or at least the implementation guidelines) as
> straightforward as possible. Otherwise, people won't bother and
> will get it all wrong.
>
> So where do I find the RFC or IETF Draft on C? or Fortran? or COBOL?
The market for C, Fortran and COBOL compilers isn't quite as
lucrative and get-rich-quick as the market is for HTML
browsers. There's less incentive for someone to put a
shoddy compiler out on the street for these systems.
Besides, if I write a crappy C compiler that doesn't accept
a bunch of legal C constructs, then peer review will
demonstrate that it's an unreliable compiler and shouldn't
get used. If someone does this with a Web browser, people
chalk it up to a matter of personal choice or personal
expression. They don't take deviations as seriously. It's
just not a comparable situation.