Re: Interest in HTML Conformance?

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Much ado about P [Was: Revised Beginner's Guide to HTML...]"
• Previous message: John Labovitz: "Re: Revised Beginner's Guide to HTML available for perusal "
• Maybe in reply to: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Interest in HTML Conformance? "

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 01:32:37 --100
Message-id: <9404192329.AA23029@mobius.geom.umn.edu>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: burchard@geom.umn.edu
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: burchard@geom.umn.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: Interest in HTML Conformance? 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1180

Marc VanHeyningen <mvanheyn@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
> What exactly do you mean by "alternative" browsers?

You're right -- "alternative" is too vague a word.  What I  
unfortunately have to think about as a document provider is the  
percentage of users trying to browse my server with a particular  
client.  Ideally, it wouldn't make any difference.  But at the  
present time it's a problem for documents that need to use features  
from HTML+.  For example:

wmperry@indiana.edu (William M. Perry) writes:
> If the 'image' input type is put into the HTML+ spec, I will
> put it in my browser.  Until then, I will work for using
> 'scribble'.

As of version 2.4, X Mosaic still does not support the HTML+ synonym  
for the "image" input ("submit" with a SRC).  On the other hand, you  
refuse to make the older syntax available.  It's not really so  
important who is "right" -- it's the disagreements themselves that  
are the problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burchard	<burchard@geom.umn.edu>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
--------------------------------------------------------------------