Re: Interest in HTML Conformance?
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 18:40:00 --100
Message-id: <>
Precedence: bulk
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: Interest in HTML Conformance?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1251 (William M. Perry) writes:
> 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). (William M. Perry) writes:
> W3 is 100% HTML compliant and the only HTML+ support
> missing now is tables.  

Really?  That would be great, but I think you are exaggerating.

For example, as far as I know, none of the "alternative" browsers  
implement ANY of the provisions for interactive graphical input  
specified by the standards --  a fundamental limitation.  There are  
at least 3 to choose from:

    -- INPUTs of type "image" (equivalent to HTML+ "submit")

HTML+ DTD draft 21 Mar 1994:
    -- INPUTs of type "submit" with a SRC attribute
    -- INPUTs of type "scribble"

I am certainly glad to see your enthusiasm for the standards, and  
look forward to continued improvements in compliance.

Paul Burchard	<>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''