>Netscapisms *WILL NOT* go away until equivalent functionality is
>in HTML 3.0 and in production browsers for Windows and Mac. All
>the debate about whether or not the extensions are good or bad is utterly
>moot. There are here. They are staying. That battle is already
>completely lost. New browsers are implementing Netscapisms. They are the
>*de facto* standard. The Microsoft color extensions to Netscape's <font >
>extensions are sure to catch on like wildfire as well.
So. What's your point in here... No need for *de facto* standard or ...
>How did this happen? Easy - they quit *talking* about standards to be
>implemented in some distant future and shipped product (no matter how
>badly thought out some the extension are). The HTML standards process risks
>becoming irrelevant. Not because the standards are bad - because the
>people developing them are too damn slow in closing and implementing
>them. It is 'committee-itis' at its worst. I have my doubts as to
>whether or not HTML 2.0 would be closed today (it *is* closed, right?
>Dan?) if Netscape hadn't kicked everyone in the shins.
>As for implementing HTML 3.0 - which version? The version that was talked
>about last week, or the version that will be talked about next week?
>Companies are not going to write browsers to support 3.0 features that
>are not STABLE. It cost real money to re-engineer. Especially after shipping.
>So close the damn thing. Write a killer HTML 3.0 browser. Kick Netscape and
>Microsoft's asses to hell and gone.
Right. Close HTML 3.0 and let's start talkin' next phase... what ever it's
>Idealism is no substitute for shipping product.
Nop. But it want pay either...
// Jari Ollikainen email@example.com
// Helsinki University of Technology
// Lifelong Learning Institute Dipoli Tel. +358 0 451 4065
// TechNet Finland Fax: +358 0 451 4487
// FI-02150 ESPOO, FINLAND