Re: Perceived Consensus: The META element stays in the Proposed section

Murray Maloney <murray@sco.COM>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 10:04:36 EDT
Message-id: <9410110958.aa23441@dali.scocan.sco.COM>
Reply-To: murray@sco.COM
Precedence: bulk
From: Murray Maloney <murray@sco.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: Perceived Consensus: The META element stays in the Proposed section
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)
I don't have anything to say about this because
I am leaving it in the hands of people like Dan
and Eric (and others) who are more familiar with it.

> In message <>, Eric W. Sink writes:
> >
> >I have not seen the nearly-unanimous support that I think should be necessary
> >to move the META element from the proposed section to the normal sections of
> >the HTML 2.0 draft spec.  Unless I am rapidly convinced that I am perceiving
> >the consensus of the group incorrectly, it will stay as it is.
> I don't think you'll see too many folks jumping up and down about
> it (except perhaps tireless Roy...), but I have yet to see a single
> objection raised.
> It's reasonably well specified, and it allows folks to do stuff that
> they wouldn't otherwise be able to do. (Well... they could do it,
> but they'd have to hack...).
> There's a lot of disucssion about URCs, surrogate records,
> metainformation, object headers, indexing structures, etc.
> This gives folks a "standard" way to experiment. You might say
> that we shouldn't standardize on this until we know exactly how
> it will turn out. That's fair...
> But I see more to be gained than to be lost by including the
> current META proposal in 2.0.
> If META can't go in now, then when? How long must a proposal
> stay in purgatory before it can get into the standard?
> I think META has passed the "trial" period.
> Dan