Re: Time to Reorg the Doc? [Was: HTextArea form element ]

Murray Maloney <murray@oclc.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 94 09:19:43 EDT
Message-id: <9406300912.aa06567@dali.scocan.sco.COM>
Reply-To: html-ig@oclc.org
Originator: html-ig@oclc.org
Sender: html-ig@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: Murray Maloney <murray@oclc.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-ig@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: Time to Reorg the Doc? [Was: HTextArea form element ]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Implementation Group (Private)

Murray Maloney's rating follows:


So let's inventory exactly what we require for an HTML 2.0 spec:

I invite folks to rate each of the following as:
	5 - must have this for my purposes
	4 - may have this, and I think it should
	3 - may have this, but I don't care
	2 - may have this, but I'd rather it did not
	1 - must not have this

Normative content:
	* An SGML Declaration and one or more DTD subsets		5
	* Minimal conformance definition				5
	* Definition of element semantics				5
		(e.g. what rendering distinctions MUST be made)
	* Element reference						5
	* Examples of recommended usage					4
	* Explanation of operation of anchors, forms, ISINDEX, ISMAP	4
	* Explanation of WWW linking and addressing			3
	* Security Issues						2

(if only there were time...)
	* Test Suite							4

Informative content:
	* Publication History						3
	* Summary of Changes since draft-iiir-html-01			3
	* "Typical Rendering" instructions				4
	* Historical notes about browser implementations that		3
		conflict with the SGML standard
	* Examples of common authoring errors				3
	* Rationale behind contentious issues				3
		(e.g. "why P is a container")
	* Proposed language changes					4

Navigation Features and Media:
	* A Postscript format file					5
	* A collection of HTML nodes					5
	* A plain text format file					3
	* A DocBook document						4

	* List of Reviewers						5
	* Revision History						4
	* Numberd Sections						4
	* Title page							3
	* Abstract							3
	* Index								4

Publication Forums/Audiences:
	* Publication through the IETF as an RFC or FYI			3
	* Publication through the Davenport group			4
	* Publication through SGML Open					3


In addition to all of this, there are two additional things:

	* Published by widely accessible web sites			4
	* Stamp of approval by at least N browser implementors		4
	  (that is organizations, not individual reviewers)
	  I'm thinking of CERN, NCSA, and at least N-2 others.
	  [ where N>4 ]