> Things like proper MIME content negotiation are being totally ignored
> simply because people are using MIME types that simply don't exist, and
> not paying attention to the parameters for MIME types (like "version="
> for "text/html").
I would like to make a point at my own expense. I teach HTML, and I
don't know anything about MIME types. What I do teach, as best as I can, is
the fundamentals of compliant HTML (and explain my limits when it comes
to doing things like forms etc.). Assuming that the users of HTML have
the expertise to pay attention to the parameters for MIME types is a
stretch -- considering that most users of HTML have probably never heard
of MIME, and many have probably never heard of "parameters."
> I agree 100% - the HTML WG should be disbanded, "HTML" should be
> delegitimised, and a "TrueHTML" (of sorts, based upon SGML) should be
> built from scratch.
> To ensure that browsers who claim to support this language are in fact
> not butchering it themselves, can/should W3C trademark the name of the
> language and only permit those browsers who pass a validation test to
> claim support for the language? If BigBusiness wants to play dirty and
> screw-up the Web (as it has done), then it should be aware that two can
> play that game.
Oh, but BigBusiness can play it SO WELL. It sounds like you are
considering inventing a new language (when there are hundreds of
thousands of users of an existing language), inventing a new name for
that language (when there are even more people who know the name "HTML"),
and then engaging in trademark and legal battles (which cost a lot of
money, by the way), to protect this new name for a new language which you
are hoping at some point to get somebody to switch to.
Is it conceivable that there is something better to do with one's time?
Steve Habib Rose
Clear Nets Training and Consulting
Developer of The HTML CyberClass