> There is a legitimate argument that the community needs to be liberal
> about accepting legacy flaws, but how long should this drive the
> specification of the standard? Should HTML be forever saddled with the
> burden of careless authors who cannot balance a tag pair?
At the first HTML WG meeting, at the IETF last Summer in Toronto, Tim
started out by saying that he wanted a standard so that he could point
to HoTMetaL and say ``that's wrong!'' :-) (actually we weren't _very_
wrong, if at all, he was teasing I think).
The more we encourage people creating HTML Authoring Tools to be involved
in this group, though, the better.
The more we encourage people writing HTML books to be aware of the standards
that apply, the better.
It would not be an IETF thing to do to endorse any particular commercial
product, whether software or a book, I think, but perhaps
[1] W3C could endorse products. HoTMetaL carries the W3C logo because we're
a member of the consortium, but if there was also a logo for `conforming
to HTML 2.0' we would hope to carry that, too.
[2] perhaps W3C could endorse books in the same way, allowing the publisher
to apply a sticker, decal or logo to indicate that the book `has been
deemed to encourage practice consistent with....'.
I think this could be a very useful service.
I strongly support Stu here:
> The time is coming that
> we should start thinking about ticketing.
Lee
-- Liam Quin, SoftQuad Inc +1 416 239 4801 lee@sq.com <URL:http://www.sq.com/> SoftQuad HoTMetaL/HTML Editor; SoftQuad Panorama/WWW SGML Viewer