Doug's point is well taken. It's been the editorial committee's policy to
make sure that TR's can be accessed from a wide variety of browsers. If
limiting the range of formatting that is to be used in TR's makes a real
difference to people in the implementers community, then that is something
the Ed. Committee ought to look at in my opinion -- at least as long as
those features aren't strictly required to express the contents of the TR.
Some people working on real products may be prevented from updating their
machines during some stages of their project. I know I kept a real stable
setup during the
two years it took to publish Unicode 3.0 and was forced to use IE 3.21 for
the longest time.
A./
At 09:36 AM 7/8/00 -0800, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:
>If you were a person who regular had to deal with such issues, as I imagine
>Mark has to be (heck, I am, and I am not nearly as busy as he is!), then it
>is likely that you have a certain level of technology... and it is also
>likely that you do not test everything you do on every version of every
>browser.
>
>Thus even if a particular report does not have such a requirement, the other
>12 you worked on over the preceeding months might. And maybe you do not want
>to waste time installing multiple browsers and such.
>
>For the UTF-8 thing, Mark did explicitly say that all new content is being
>done with UTF-8 encoding in a message last night.
