Re: HTML 2.0 "Daniel W. Connolly" <email@example.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 94 12:48:01 EDT
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: HTML 2.0
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)
OK... now we have a plan that will get the train to the station
In message <9409221458.AA10031@hook.spyglass.com>, Mike Knezovich writes:
>Surveying the group's mail prior to and since the Aug. 22 release, there
>actually don't appear to be that many specific changes (such as those just
>discussed re: LI attributes) to the technical content. There appears to
>have been more discussion about HTML 2.1 and 3.0 additions than HTML 2.0,
>which is currently irrelevant to this process.
Here's what I see as the outstanding DTD related issues, relative
to the Aug 22 version:
* 3 files or 1? (1 seems to be the way to go)
* What to use for public text ower?
(I think "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN//2.0" will work)
* Get rid of Prescriptive and Obsolete distinctions
(1 valid objection has been raised. I feel
they should be kept in.)
* Prepare an HTML-specific version of the ISOlat1 entites
file, rather than referencing the public text
* Allow </A> to be ommitted? (I'd say: yes at this point)
I'll try to incorporate these changes and make the results available
next week some time.
>Our plans and schedule are thus:
>1. A text version available by October 10. We can mail (long) or make
>available by anon-FTP.
Please do both, so I can link to the FTP version from my "review
>5. After one more round of discussion of the text version, integration of
>changes and new versions available mid November for last call.
I can hardly wait!
Thanks for all the work.