With all due respect to Mr. Ragett and his efforts...
HTML+, as I see it, lacks the following:
* Support from CERN (they write that HTML+ will _not_ replace HTML)
* Support from NCSA (they have implemented some features, but
not the bulk of them)
* Widespread use, which follows from a lack of...
* An available implementation
As a spec, it's also somewhat more prescriptive ("here's how we should
do it...") than descriptive ("here's what folks do that's useful...").
The DTD is also apparently not an exact description of HTML+. An HTML+
implementation is supposed to be able to do more tag inference than a
standard SGML parser. I have yet to see a formal description of the
exact set of inferences required of an HTML+ implementation.
>Does the question now need to be asked "So, where exactly are we"? Is
>Raggets HTML+ the next standard or is the gist of this thread we need to
>back up to square one and standardize on what we got?
The majority reaction seems to favor standardizing on what we got.
> I say, let HTML be
>the defacto but work as quickly as possible to solidify HTML+.
Too many folks aren't happy with a defacto standard. They want
something published.
> Muck and
>mire are starting to form as too many people want to go too many
>directions.
Agreed.
>Isn't all this just remarkable? I've been following this newsgroup for
>perhaps nine months or so and been facinated to watch the web grow
>unmercifully. Everyone should be applauded for what has happened up to
>this point, but beware the 'design by committee', which this mailing list
>is trying to become (as opposed to 'design by community', which is how I
>view the process to this point)
I don't see the distinction. I have made my ideas widely available.
There is no committee. Whatever happens at this point is a product of
sheer momentum.
Dan