Re: Re HMML?

marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen)

Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr-Jun 1993 Archives
Next message: Dave_Raggett: "Re: Poetry and Maths"
Previous message: Dave_Raggett: "HTRQ and Kerberos"
In-reply-to: Dale Dougherty: "Re: Re HMML?"
References: Dave_Raggett: "Re HMML?"

Date: Wed, 26 May 93 00:25:52 -0500
From: marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Marc Andreessen)
Message-id: <9305260525.AA02741@wintermute.ncsa.uiuc.edu>
To: dale@ora.com (Dale Dougherty)
Cc: Dave_Raggett <dsr@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: Re HMML?
In-reply-to: <9305252024.ZM3567@cider.west.ora.com>
References: <9305251659.AA13601@manuel.hpl.hp.com>
	<9305252024.ZM3567@cider.west.ora.com>
	<dsr@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
X-Md4-Signature: 39366bb395ff437f7eb123bc969d33ef

Dale Dougherty writes:
> >My main objective is backwards compatibility with existing HTML.
> >The change to the container model shouldn't effect such documents.
> >Another objective is
> 
> I'd like to see some discussion about HMML being backwards
> compatible with HTML.  I think it's a mistake to set that up as a
> design objective.  It also raises questions about how WWW parsers
> are going to work in the future.  I would prefer to see HTML as a
> frozen thing; and HMML as the next generation.  HMML documents
> should identify themselves using a document type declaration and
> parsers should look for this information.
> 
> Once HMML becomes available, new documents should conform to HMML,
> not HTML.  Support for HTML continues for already existing
> documents.

I agree -- this is a good thing to discuss.  I think HTML is
expendable if HMML can be better without having anything to do with
it.  (Whether that's the case or not, I'm not sure.  I'd guess it is.)

Cheers,
Marc