|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 03:16:58 +0100 Errors-To: postmaster@www0.cern.ch Errors-To: postmaster@www0.cern.ch Reply-To: gra@zeppo-sa.east.sun.com From: gra@zeppo-sa.east.sun.com (Gary Adams - Sun Microsystems Labs BOS) To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch> Before we get too many : text/x-<browser-name>-html documents floating around, it would be good to have a simple registry in place that would not require a full standards body to debate the details of each new set of enhancements that come along. There is a fair amount of agreement today for what is in HTML 1.0 and 2.0 . There is some general idea of what will be available in HTML 3.0 and to a lesser extent what could appear in HTML 2.1. Perhaps the Netscape extensions could be labeled as "bag a" of HTML extensions. aka HTML 2.0.a or 2.0 + a . Are there other extension naming conventions that could fill the gap ? A mechanism that allows both a formal standardization process and a rapid prototyping environment for new browser developers is important to maintain the growth of web capabilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |