Up to a point, I think labeling browser conformance levels is roughly 
like viewing evolution as a ladder, rather than a branching tree. 
Sure, most browsers now share lots of common functionality, but there's
going to be specializations. 
But I agree that some basic set/group/level designation is very useful.
So, how about we flesh out a "WWW Browsers Capabilities Tabulation" chart,
then group the capabilites into some conformance designations. Such info
is useful in anycase-- as you can see below, I'm no longer sure of what's
in what browser.
			Keys:
			a = available for use.
			e = experimental status. in development but unstable.
			i = incomplete implementation.
			u = unavailable to public (yet), but exists.
			Cello
			|   Emacs
			|   |	Erwise
			|   |	|   LineMode
		        |   |   |   |   Lynx
		        |   |   |   |   |   MidasWWW
		        |   |   |   |   |   |   Mosaic-Mac
		        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   Mosaic-Win
                        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   Mosaic-X
		        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   TkWWW
	                |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   ViolaWWW
		        |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
Pre-DTD HTML		a   a   a   a   a   a   a   a   a   a   a
HTTP/0.9		a   a   a   a   a   a   a   a   a   a   a
HTTP/1.0		                        a?  a?  a?
mailto:						a?  a?  a?      u
HTML  <PRE>             a   a   a   a   a   a   a   a   a   a   u
      <IMG>		                    a   a   a   a       u
      <ISMAP>                               a   a   a   a       u
HTML+ <FIGURE>							ui
HTML+ input str	                                        a       u
            int	                                        a       u
            check	                                a       u
            radio	                                a       u
HTML+ tables		                                        u
Stylesheets		                                        uie
-Pei