Re: Internet Draft

Roy T. Fielding (fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU)
Fri, 11 Nov 94 10:40:41 EST

Stu writes:

> I think the File Transmission Internet Draft should be alluded
> to in a formal way in the HTML 2.0 document as a proposed componment
> of a future iteration of the standard, but not made an official part
> of 2.0. In this way, implementors will be alerted to this important
> functionality and will know to consider it, but we will still have
> time to look at the issues without committing prematurely and, more
> important, without delaying adoption of 2.0.
> Is it sufficient to refer to it in the Proposed and Obsolete Elements
> section?

No. When the 2.0 draft is "finished", there should be no Proposed
section -- that only existed as a means for discussing what should
be included in 2.0. Otherwise, we'd end up with all of HTML+ listed
as proposed.

Remember, any level 2 items that are "new" will be in the 2.1 spec.
Level 3 items should be in the 3.0 spec. In this regard, I don't see
how the file transmission proposal should be treated any differently
than the proposal for Tables.

Note that these other versions will not be produced sequentially.
Dave should already be working on the 3.0 spec (I hope), and we can
start parallel definition of 2.1 after the San Jose meeting.

.....Roy Fielding ICS Grad Student, University of California, Irvine USA