Re: HTML+ Comments (Marc Andreessen)
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 93 14:37:43 -0500
From: (Marc Andreessen)
Message-id: <>
To: Dave_Raggett <>
Subject: Re: HTML+ Comments
In-reply-to: <>
References: <>
X-Md4-Signature: 2f9fb32418e32790470d317d9db672e3
Status: RO
Dave_Raggett writes:
> SGML tags act like brackets and must be properly nested. There is therefore
> no syntactic ambiguity. However, in the real world, people do make typos and
> you are right in suggesting that this abbreviation would make it harder for
> browsers (and people) to recover from errors.
> Before I remove this feature, does anyone else feel the same way?

I'm definitely in favor of </>; I think it's very clean and quite
nice, and as its meaning is completely deterministic there's no reason
not to have it.

> > 2) It appears that both the <img> and <fig> tag should be rolled into one,
> > as both accomplishes esentially the same thing.
> I have included IMG for two reasons.
>     a)  for simple captionless graphics, which are positioned
>         as part of the current text line.
>     b)  for backwards compatibility with HTML (X Mosaic and Cello)

It's fine with the Mosaic folks if IMG goes or stays (we're not
emotionally attached to it :-).