>>"DHTML is an abbreviation for the term "Dynamic HTML". But DHTML is just a buzzword. DHTML does not exist. It is not a "thing" or a standard defined by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). It is not defined anywhere. It is just a fancy word."
>
>Good point. However, those who work regularly with DHTML will tell you that it's very real indeed. :-)

I do - which prompted posting the above quote, I nearly added the one below from the WWW Consortium :

"Dynamic HTML is a term used by some vendors to describe the combination of HTML, style sheets and scripts that allows documents to be animated."

Which is probably as good a definition as any.

>I agree that DHTML is mostly a generic reference to the exposed object model (DOM) and how you interact with it. I disagree with the assertion that it is not defined anywhere.
>
>It may not exist as a broadly-accepted standard, but there is plenty of documentation on it, including a multitude of books. You'll find an entire section in the MSDN Library on it.

The point is there is no official definition of DHTML, it is very much browser (and version) specific. Each vendor comes up with their own definition, which is similar to others, but not quite the same. The section in MSDN is specific to IE, but not fully relevant to Netscape, Opera, etc. Similarly, the many of the multitude of books are browser specific or have a lot of discussion on the differences.

I wasn't trying to argue with your definition, just to clarify Kevin's comment about the relationship between HTML & DHTML. I had intended my second message to Kevin to be attached to the first - that it is the browser that provides the objects/properties not HTML. DHTML is not the method of accessing those objects or properties, it is rather the result of accessing them.