Marc writes as a reason for wanting HTML+ to be backwards compatible
with HTML:
> It makes it easy to evolve the browsers over time rather than
> try to do a complete implementation of HTML+ at one time (which,
> as discussed at WWWWW, isn't likely in the near future).
OK, I am currently trying to support that, e.g. making character emphasis
match the HTML model rather than overloading <EM> and putting REV and
REL in place of ROLE for <A> and <LINK>. People can treat <P> as a
separator or as a container. <BR> is in but is deprecated in favor of
<LIT> which is a proportional font version of <PRE> and suitable for
stuff like poetry with significant leading spaces. Some elements in HTML
have been dropped in favor of cleaner constructs, but in the transition
period browsers can support both. The new draft is full of examples and
will be available very soon - I have been furiously typing all week.
The new version of HTML+ is simpler and cleaner!
Dave Raggett