<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Stijn Peeters wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:002901c83e36$831b0000$89510000$@p@hccnet.nl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">As I said, a SHOULD requirement in the specification which will (given the
current status quo) not be followed by the major(ity of) browser vendors is
useless and should be improved so it is a recommendation which at least can
be implemented. Changing the SHOULD to MUST means that a lot of browser
vendors would not be able to develop a conforming implementation.
Governments do generally not build browsers or HTML parsers so an HTML
specification would likely not influence them much, and I believe they are
not who such a specification is aimed at.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is a tired argument already debunked. The browsers that won't
support OGG support plugins (and still remain HTML5 compliant). The
recommendation will push other browsers (of which there are many)
towards a common ground.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:002901c83e36$831b0000$89510000$@p@hccnet.nl"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
As stated before, it did not advocate them, merely stated them as *examples*
of image formats. Your claim that HTML4 played a substantial role in
adoption of GIF and JPEG is interesting. Do you have any sources for that?
</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes. <br>
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.houseofmabel.com/programs/html3/docs/img.html">http://www.houseofmabel.com/programs/html3/docs/img.html</a>). I quote:<br>
--------<br>
As "progress" increases the number of graphics types I've been asked to
support in <i>HTML3</i>, many people are unsure as to exactly what
formats are supported so perhaps a list is in order:
<ul>
<li>GIF (&695, "GIF") </li>
<li>PNG (&B60, "PNG") </li>
<li>JPEG (&C85, "JPEG") </li>
<li>Sprite (&FF9, "Sprite") </li>
<li>BMP (&69C, "BMP") </li>
<li>SWF (&188, "Flash") </li>
<li>WBMP (&F8F, "WBMP")
</li>
</ul>
-----------<br>
So which of the above became defacto web standards under HTML4? And
there were a LOT more image formats out there. Not proof, but certainly
evidence the spec helped narrow down the list. Even though it was
neither a SHOULD or MUST specification they were mentioned and it seems
to me that counts for something. So did the fact the formats in
question were believed to be public-domain. However, I acknowledge the
speculative nature of this as I acknowledge the speculative nature of
your other claims (like browser manufactures not supporting OGG when
the spec becomes final).<br>
<br>
Shannon<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>