• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: a standards story
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 11:32:22 -0700
• In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20020517123900.00d4f690@geekserv1>
• References: <4.3.2.7.2.20020517123900.00d4f690@geekserv1> <4.3.2.7.2.20020517120209.00d583c0@geekserv1> <p04330100b90ad42d9d33@[192.168.254.4]>

Ann Navarro wrote:
> Lauren Wood wrote:
> >  And it has been known for individual
> >member companies to vote against particular recommendations, though I
> >don't know of any that have been entirely rejected. Member companies could
> >equally demand that the entire specification be completely reworked.
>
> It happened with HTML 3, though I believe the process was somewhat
> different at the time.

Right, although I don't remember there being anything
like a "vote" against Dave Raggett's spec.  Mosaic
Communications/Netscape and Microsoft simply ignored
his work.

So the W3C went back to the earlier practice of trying
to reverse-engineer what the major browser vendors were
already doing for the HTML 3.2 spec.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • Re: a standards story
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
  • Re: a standards story
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
  • Re: a standards story
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Penance for misspent attributes
• Next by Date: Re: Objections to / uses of PSVI?
• Previous by thread: RE: a standards story
• Next by thread: Re: a standards story
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread