Re: Netscape v NCSA, Progress?

Wed, 19 Oct 94 09:41:00 -0600

>From: DCROCKER @ SMTP (Dave Crocker) {}
>Date: Tuesday, October 18, 1994 7:32PM
>At 1:38 PM 10/18/94, Eric Bina wrote:
>>... If you don't like
>>the new HTML elements, fine, don't use them.
>sounds like classic 'proprietary' systems, folks. Doesn't sound at all
>like open systems.

Where's the "proprietary", Dave? If I want to use these extensions in my
HTML, I can. If I want to incorporate them into the browser I'm writing, I
can. The 'specification' is published. Mosaic Communications hasn't slapped
a copyright on them. There's no royalty payment.

The fact that they were decided without 'public discussion' does not make
them proprietary.

When NCSA first 'unleashed' Mosaic on the world of the web, were they
castigated for the HTML changes they made? Were those extensions called
'proprietary'? (as I remember, it was 'yes' and 'no').

No one owns the web. No one owns HTML. Anyone can announce that the browser
they've developed will support the elements <X> </X>, or in-line mpeg, or
anything else they want. If its successful, and users like it, it will be
incorporated into other browsers, and become part of 'the web'. If not, it

That's how de facto standards are created. And, funny thing, de facto
standards tend to be much more widely honored than de jure standards -
precidely because they're the ones people want to use!