Liam> On Mon, 11 Apr 1994, Daniel W. Connolly wrote: [stuff deleted]
>> Are most folks (including the NCSA Mosaic licensees) content to
>> define HTML as "whatever the latest release of Mosaic supports", or
>> are we
Liam> No !!!
C-u 5000 M-x amen
Liam> Using Mosaic as the "standard setter" is quite alright for the
Liam> moment, but we shall eventually need some stability.
Not really, I think the most 'featureful' browser should be used as the
standard. Which would definitely have to be the excellent violaWWW. It is
real close to 100% HTML+ conformance (as is emacs-w3, but in diff areas).
Of course, from the teasing gifs, it looks like Dave Raggett's browser
will blow the doors off both :)