Interest in HTML Conformance?
wmperry@indiana.edu (William M. Perry)
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 10:53:26 --100
Message-id: <m0pqdDB-00005bC@monolith>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: wmperry@indiana.edu
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: wmperry@indiana.edu (William M. Perry)
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Interest in HTML Conformance?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1405
>>>>> "DWC" == Daniel W Connolly <connolly@hal.com> writes:
DWC> I'm interested in establishing a formal definition of HTML --
DWC> perhaps a few variants including "Minimal HTML Support" (no forms,
DWC> no nested lists, conforming SGML), "Mosaic-2.x Support" (where 2.x
DWC> is some future release of Mosaic which coincides with publication
DWC> of a DTD that it supports).
DWC> Perhaps HTML+ could be incorporated as a level of support.
We discussed this at the TEI-WWW meeting in ireland and had decided to
have 'levels' of browsers. Here is an excertp from the notes we put
together at the end of the meetings:
o Browsers may implement different levels of HTML+ conformance.
* Level 0 implementation
+ HTML 1.0 spec referenced above
* Level 1 implementation
+ Partial fill-out forms
+ New entity definitions (in section 5.1 of HTML+
draft)
* Level 2 implementation
+ Additional presentation tags (sub, sup, strike)
& logical emphasis
+ Full forms support (incl. type checking)
+ Generic emphasis tag
* Level 3 implementation
+ Figures
+ NOTEs and admonishments
* Further levels to be specified
There was some discussion of this after the notes were put on the web,
and most seemed to agree that it was a good thing. I definitely do _NOT_
think this should be based on what any one browser does (unless it is dsr's
html+ browser :)
-Bill P.