[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Surely if the purpose is of the RFC is to provide a similar facility to HTML, and it in fact provides a completely different one, it indicates either that an interpretation is wrong or that the wording is buggy? You don't want the case where the RFC could have said its purpose was to provide a *dissimilar* facility to HTML with the exactly same level of truth... Rick On 5 May 2017 09:08, "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@b...> wrote:
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |

Cart



