["Roy T. Fielding": HTML 2.0 spec and the META element]

"Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
Message-id: <9406101613.AA07801@ulua.hal.com>
To: html-ig@oclc.org
Subject: ["Roy T. Fielding": HTML 2.0 spec and the META element]
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 11:13:27 -0500
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
Content-Length: 1714

------- Forwarded Message

To: connolly@hal.com
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: HTML 2.0 spec and the META element
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 Jun 1994 23:43:00 +0200."
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 1994 01:07:01 -0700
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@simplon.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Message-Id:  <9406090107.aa12344@paris.ics.uci.edu>

> The first release of the HTML 2.0 specification materials is hereby
> announced.

I'll start with a simple comment -- the following is wrong in

     Obsolete head elements

        A wrapper for an HTTP element 

META cannot be an obsolete element because it has never existed in past
versions of HTML.

META should be a proposed element, with syntax and semantics fully
defined in the spec as per our prior discussion on www-html.
[I'm not surprised that it has not yet been included, I'm just making the
claim that it should be included as a proposed element before the 2.0 spec
can be considered complete].

Furthermore, all proposed elements should be fully defined in the spec
if their definition is known, and a "Proposed extensions to the DTD"
section should be included as well.  If the definition is not known,
the purpose of the element should just be considered a "future direction"
and lumped together with other undefined stuff in some descriptive appendix.
[My editorial comment for the day]

...Roy Fielding   ICS Grad Student, University of California, Irvine  USA
    <A HREF="http://www.ics.uci.edu/dir/grad/Software/fielding">About Roy</A>

------- End of Forwarded Message