Re: HTML 3.2

Subject: Re: HTML 3.2
From: Vanessa Wilburn <vlwilburn -at- CPU -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 08:44:52 -0500

I would say yes it is a waste of money, since a standards book should
reflect the adopted standard. HTML 3.0 was not adopted, hence it would not
be appropriate to follow it. The same goes for the newly *proposed* 3.2.
Until it is adopted, treat it as such.

There is a great deal of good reference material on HTML standards at


Subject: Re: HTML 3.2

Yvonne DeGraw[SMTP:yvonne -at- silcom -dot- com] wrote:
>> Yes, HTML 3.0 is defunct. <<

Sorry if this is a stupid question. Since HTML 3.0 is history, would it
be a waste of one's money to purchase one of the many HTML 3.0 books that
are on the market?

I wonder why these books got published in the first place...
Were publishers just trying to get a jump start on the market, and it
turned out to be a bad decision?

Bev Parks
parksb -at- huachuca-emh7 -dot- army -dot- mil


* Vanessa L. Wilburn | Voice: +1 (504)-889-2784 *
* Computerized Processes Unlimited | FAX: +1 (504)-889-2799 *
* 4200 S. I-10 Service Rd., Suite 205 | E-Mail: vlwilburn -at- cpu -dot- com *
* Metairie, LA 70001 | *

TECHWR-L List Information
To send a message about technical communication to 2500+ list readers,
E-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send administrative commands
ALL other questions or problems concerning the list
should go to the listowner, Eric Ray, at ejray -at- ionet -dot- net -dot-

Previous by Author: Re: Screen Captures in HTML
Next by Author: Re: LISTBIZ: Consistency in Topic Headings
Previous by Thread: Re: HTML 3.2
Next by Thread: Ventura to Online Help

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads