Re: HTML 3.2

[Vanessa Wilburn <vlwilburn -at- CPU -dot- COM>]

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
http://wwww.w3.org

Vanessa

------------------------------
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                   | http://www.cpu.com                *
****************************************************************************

                  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-