> Good point. Does anyone out there know for sure how future
> deployment of html3 source will go out on the net? For now it's
> text/x-html-3 or something like that; will there be an <HTML3> tag?
> My concern is whether there should be some tag attached to a file
> that's visible to a user (like a clear .html3 extension). Of
> course, this line of reasoning would lead to .html3d documents too,
> and that might tread on the balliwick of the VRML folks :-)
Since browsers are supposed to be backwards-compatable, I don't think
we want to distinguish between HTML 2.0 and 3.0 (or 1.0 or 4.0...,
for that matter) via a separate filetype, do we? I believe it should
be sufficient to use the 3.0 doctype header.
-- Jim