Re: simple HTML list considered harmful

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jul-Oct 1993
• Next message: Tony Sanders: "Re: virtual documents and <BASE> "
• Previous message: Nathan Torkington: "virtual documents and <BASE>"

Errors-To: sanders@bsdi.com
Errors-To: sanders@bsdi.com
Message-id: <9309302134.AA26200@austin.BSDI.COM>
To: www-talk@nxoc01.cern.ch
Subject: Re: simple HTML list considered harmful 
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 30 Sep 93 15:51:03 CDT.
Errors-To: sanders@bsdi.com
Reply-To: sanders@bsdi.com
Organization: Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 16:34:42 -0500
From: Tony Sanders <sanders@bsdi.com>

montulli@stat1.cc.ukans.edu (Lou Montulli) writes:
> I agree.  Unless someone has REALLY compeling reasons why a completely
> new syntax is absolutely needed then we will have a much easier time
> implementing new features as extensions to the existing HTML spec.
> Also, users won't have a huge learning curve when they convert to HTML+
> they will already know the basics.

I have no problems extending HTML.  However, when you do that we have the
current situation where every browser supports it's own dialect.  The HTML
RFC was supposed to solve this and define a baseline of support that users
could depend on.  Timb: Any word on where this is?

We discussed whether HTML+ should be backwards compatible at WWWWW but
nothing was ever decided, if you remember the reason we discussed it is
that currently the HTML+ is NOT backwards compatible (REV's changed to
ROLE, and droped REL, and ACTION things instead of HREF's).  If we want
it to be backwards compatible then those things need to be fixed.  Having
an HTML RFC will make this easier.

--sanders