Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, alt.html
From: Arjun Ray <a...@nmds.com.invalid>
Date: 17 Oct 2001 00:15:12 -0500
Local: Wed, Oct 17 2001 1:15 am
Subject: Re: Apple comments on the W3C's proposal
Andrew Glasgow <amg39.REMOVET...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:| In article <t12pstcedbttqh1d6j8jmbpnl781omm...@4ax.com>,
| Arjun Ray <a...@nmds.com.invalid> wrote:
|> Andrew Glasgow <amg39.REMOVET...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
|>| In article <j8gnstorvjt4srgoa4gnmi1qso3do0p...@4ax.com>,
|>| Arjun Ray <a...@nmds.com.invalid> wrote:
|>|> Andrew Glasgow <amg39.REMOVET...@cornell.edu.INVALID> wrote:
|> A Tag Soup spec delivered in late '94 or early '95 would have been:
Really? Would you care to explain why all sorts of people went ape
[Yes, the "missing years" of the www-talk and www-html lists at
That was August 93. In January 94, there was RFC 1563 (note that
Read item 7 in Appendix B. Now add inline images and simple links,
Suck ass? Hindsight is easy, ain't it?
If you want to see what people might have been *missing*, see
The Aug 94 date only reflects editorial changes of a document that was
Yep: collapsible lists, tables, multicolumn layouts, text flow around
Suck ass? Now, why did people justify MarcA's assertion by *choosing*
History is embarassing, ain't it?
|> as it happens, I don't view "standard" HTML as substantially better.
What works as markup for the WWW is Tag Soup.
|> Tag Soup need not be proprietary crapola, nor is the W3C a guard
Only in that it's a limited paradigm - a dead end, no future. But!
Vanity, thy name is Web.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.