Re: Proposed extensions to HTML

Brian Behlendorf (
Fri, 18 Nov 1994 14:27:59 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 18 Nov 1994, Michael Johnson wrote:
> This whole discussion is a clear example of why it is a bad thing for people
> to do what MCOM (NCOM?) did, which is to unilaterally monkey with standards.

Actually as long as they don't call it a standard, or anything other than
"proposed" i.e. "experimental" i.e. "this may change at a future date so
don't put it in professional or mission-critical documents", and as long as
these tags aren't billed as an extra "feature" a la anti-lock brakes on cars,
they're not any worse than any other browser author experimenting with new
tags to see if they are useful or not.

Bad standards come about when the step from "gee it would be nice if..." to
IETF ratification is short - we need to experiment with tags before declaring
whether they're useful or not. There are some things in their extensions I
would indeed like to see in HTML 3.0... and other tags that definitely point
to the need for style sheets and keeping logical and presenational markup

And some tags, like the width and height attributes to the IMG tag,
suggest that maybe the HTML that the server dishes out should be
different than the HTML the author creates....


Your slick hype/tripe/wipedisk/zipped/zippy/whine/online/sign.on.the.ish/oil
pill/roadkill/grease.slick/neat.trick is great for what it is. -- Wired Fan #3