Re: Interest in HTML Conformance?

[email protected]
Sun, 17 Apr 94 20:40:28 -0500

[email protected] (William M. Perry) writes:
> 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).

[email protected] (William M. Perry) writes:
> W3 is 100% HTML compliant and the only HTML+ support
> missing now is tables.

Really? That would be great, but I think you are exaggerating.

For example, as far as I know, none of the "alternative" browsers
implement ANY of the provisions for interactive graphical input
specified by the standards -- a fundamental limitation. There are
at least 3 to choose from:

HTML DTD 1.8:
-- INPUTs of type "image" (equivalent to HTML+ "submit")

HTML+ DTD draft 21 Mar 1994:
-- INPUTs of type "submit" with a SRC attribute
-- INPUTs of type "scribble"

I am certainly glad to see your enthusiasm for the standards, and
look forward to continued improvements in compliance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Burchard <[email protected]>
``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
--------------------------------------------------------------------