4 ms·

I think the crux of that conversion is: «Marc Andreessen (marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu) Fri, 26 Feb 93 13:32:09 -0800 Tim Berners-Lee writes: > I don't want to chang

by gioele 14y ago

I think the crux of that conversion is: «Marc Andreessen (marca@ncsa.uiuc.edu) Fri, 26 Feb 93 13:32:09 -0800 Tim Berners-Lee writes: > I don't want to change HTML now if I can help it, until it has gone to RFC track I absolutely agree in all cases -- my purpose in suggesting IMG is that things are reaching the point where some browsers are going to be implementing this feature somehow, even if it's not standard, just because it's the logical next step, and it would be great to have consistency from the beginning -- so that when HTML2 comes along, we're all still in lockstep..... Cheers, Marc» http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0197.html http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0197.ht... The HTML 5 designers/implementers fight has always been there, with implementers usually having the last word. Mark Pilgrim on how much the WHATWG resembles the HTML 2 working group activity: http://web.archive.org/web/20110710091457/http://diveintomark.org/archives/2009/11/02/why-do-we-have-an-img-element http://web.archive.org/web/20110710091457/http://diveintomar...

seanalltogether 14y ago
And because of this, people were already predicting what would end up happening as a result of implementers rushing out features http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0198.html http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0198.ht... Wait a minute -- let's temporarily forget about MIME, if it clouds the issue. My objection was to the discussion of "how are we going to support embedded images" rather than "how are we going to support embedded objections in various media". Otherwise, next week someone is going to suggest 'lets put in a new tag <AUD SRC="file://foobar.com/foo/bar/blargh.snd">' for audio. There shouldn't be much cost in going with something that generalizes.
- gioele 14y ago
  That thread also predicted the weird and unrealistic "let's-stay-inside-the-existing-boundaries" responses: > SGML does provide an official way of doing this folks and even if Dan C ain't here to round us up we maybe ought to stick to the track. > > <!ENTITY ICON6 SYSTEM "http://blah..>&ICON6 http://blah..>&ICON6; http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0202.html http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0202.ht...

by gioele 14y ago

seanalltogether 14y ago

And because of this, people were already predicting what would end up happening as a result of implementers rushing out features http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0198.html http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0198.ht... Wait a minute -- let's temporarily forget about MIME, if it clouds the issue. My objection was to the discussion of "how are we going to support embedded images" rather than "how are we going to support embedded objections in various media". Otherwise, next week someone is going to suggest 'lets put in a new tag <AUD SRC="file://foobar.com/foo/bar/blargh.snd">' for audio. There shouldn't be much cost in going with something that generalizes.

gioele 14y ago
That thread also predicted the weird and unrealistic "let's-stay-inside-the-existing-boundaries" responses: > SGML does provide an official way of doing this folks and even if Dan C ain't here to round us up we maybe ought to stick to the track. > > <!ENTITY ICON6 SYSTEM "http://blah..>&ICON6 http://blah..>&ICON6; http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0202.html http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0202.ht...