Re: Interest in HTML Conformance? (William M. Perry)
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 10:49:01 --100
Message-id: <m0pqd8k-00005bC@monolith>
Precedence: bulk
From: (William M. Perry)
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: Interest in HTML Conformance?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 784
>>>>> "Liam" == Liam Relihan <> writes:

Liam> On Mon, 11 Apr 1994, Daniel W. Connolly wrote: [stuff deleted]

>> Are most folks (including the NCSA Mosaic licensees) content to
>> define HTML as "whatever the latest release of Mosaic supports", or
>> are we

Liam> No !!!

C-u 5000 M-x amen 

Liam> Using Mosaic as the "standard setter" is quite alright for the
Liam> moment, but we shall eventually need some stability.

    Not really, I think the most 'featureful' browser should be used as the
standard.  Which would definitely have to be the excellent violaWWW.  It is
real close to 100% HTML+ conformance (as is emacs-w3, but in diff areas).

    Of course, from the teasing gifs, it looks like Dave Raggett's browser
will blow the doors off both :)

   -Bill P.