Re: HTML 2.0 firstname.lastname@example.org (Eric W. Sink)
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 94 15:17:14 EDT
From: email@example.com (Eric W. Sink)
To: Multiple recipients of list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: HTML 2.0 specification
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)
>We have implemented several features from HTML+ that we would like to
>discuss having in the HTML 2.0 specification. Specifically, we have
>implemented the EMBED, GROUP and LINK elements.
>Please let me know how we can participate in the discussion.
Being only one person in the group, I certainly have no "authority"
to veto things, but in general, this group has made a concerted
effort to remain focussed on documenting common current practice.
My impression is that most of the people in the WG are fairly
satisfied with the document from a content standpoint. There are
a few edits which need to be made, but I generally perceive a
desire to move the 2.0 document along the RFC path without
significant additions to the specification.
Spyglass has recently volunteered to coordinate the document
the rest of the way down that path, after time constraints
brought Dan Connolly to step out of that role somewhat. (Dan
remains a principal author). Mike Knezovich is our point man
here at Spyglass, and he plans to send a pseudo-status report
to the list later today.
Now, having said all that (which I hope is a fairly accurate
summary), I'll add that we welcome people into "the discussion".
This group continues to discuss various aspects of HTML futures
which will not make it into the 2.0 document. HTML levels 2.1,
2.5, 3.0, or whatever still lie ahead.
Eric W. Sink, Software Engineer -- email@example.com 217-355-6000 ext 237
All opinions expressed are mine, and may not be those of my employer.
"If you have 3 SGML experts, then you have 8 opinions of what a DTD is."
-TBL, 26 July 1994