The oldest surviving description of HTML+ dates from November 1993, but hints contained in the description point to a previous version of HTML+ (now lost) which appears to have dated from a period even prior to the publication of "HTML 1.k" in that most of the basic HTML+ description files contain the element - thus dating their origin to that period from November 26, 1992 to (at least) May 24, 1993, or else (at least as likely), Dave Raggett was still using the version of the NeXT HTML editor that Tim Berners-Lee had used for that crucial period, instead of some more recent or current editor. Seeing the character entity reference errors that HTML 1.k introduced in this version of HTML+ does suggest that he may have used that published draft as his starting point, thus dating his first efforts after that time. These same files were then hand-modified as shown by the inclusion of the HTML+ element
as well as the descriptions of the later HTML+ features. This earlier version of HTML+ had some differences from the November 1993 version of HTML+ (which I call here "HTML 1.q" to be consistent with my versioning system introduced in my main Lost Tags of HTML file). These differences can be gleaned by a couple means within the description files, first by descriptions of tags that are not in the DTD (such as the conditional text tags, and ) but described as though they have always been around, and not appearing in any subsequent version of HTML+, second by descriptions of tags or attributes, as seen in one of the Math examples, an element, meant to serve as a right delimiter (for some reason the pipe ("|") character was not meant to expand like the other brackets and parenthesis, "(" ")" "{" "}" "[" and "]", would when encompassing a taller expression in a math formula, so various means were being used for implementing a stretchable pipe delimiter character, useful for such things as matrix determinates, such as &ldet; and &rdet; as well as (and by implication as well). These character entities and elements are not recognized by any surviving form of HTML+, nor by the HTML 3.0 Draft. There is also a reference to their having once been an