gee, it's already past 1pm, pacific, and no sight of jim.

anyway...

here's another question for him, when he does show up.

if p.g. were to adopt .html as "a master format", then
_which_ version of .html would it be?  the lower-bound
on accepted .html files these days is 4.01-transitional...

but i think a variety of other .html and .xhtml versions
are accepted.  and meanwhile, html5 is looming large...

indeed, you might have heard that one of the two big
organizations that "controls" .html has even decided
to _drop_versioning_, and renamed html5 as "html"...
from now on, it will be "a living standard", dictated
solely by whatever definition exists on its website...

meanwhile, the other organization is _stressing_ the
"5" in .html5 (instead of dropping it), and came out
with a _logo_ that looks like a superman badge, but
with a "5" instead of the "s".

and then there are all the wars over the video codec
used in html5.  it seems there's no "standard" there.

indeed, there are even discussions about what should
be included in the html5 name.  should css3 be in it?
how about geolocation?  offline storage?  webworkers?

all by itself, it seems, html5 makes good on the rub:
>   "the reason standards are so nice is that
>   there are so many to choose from."

yet _somehow,_ jim, our hero, is gonna come up with
a version of .html for p.g. to use as its master-format.

so please, jim, reveal this "great compromise".

the world is waiting...

-bowerbird