Re: Toward Closure on HTML
Mon, 4 Apr 94 22:17:37 -0500

Daniel W. Connolly writes:
> I think forms should be a separate document type. I don't
> see a requirement to be able to include forms inside
> arbitrary documents. And I see more value in separating
> them from the normal HTML document type.
> The same goes for tables, math, and small inline images.

Doesn't that largely defeat the purpose of this intermediate
standardization effort, if you ignore key Mosaic features like inline
images and interactive forms? The outstanding success of Mosaic has
given us a wonderful and rare opportunity to standardize on its
advances, before any major splintering takes place. Why does
everyone here seem determined to squander that opportunity?

> When I began looking at HTML and WWW, it was difficult to
> tell exactly what HTML was, so I tried to develop a
> specification. That spec apparently hasn't solved much
> :-{ It failed to address a number of features essential to
> the successful deployment of HTML.

What's different this time? The current mainstream success of the
Web has a lot to do with Mosaic's graphical and interactive features.
What these features need most right now is some kind of base-level
standard so that they can be used reliably.

I guess Marc is more of a heretic than I realized.

Paul Burchard <>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''