Re: Plan for next 24 days?

Larry Masinter (
Sun, 13 Nov 94 03:58:34 EST

The usual plan for these things is that the editor(s) of the document
make a good faith effort to generate a new draft that reflects what
they believe the consensus of the group wants; in the course of doing
those edits, if there are issues for which consensus is not clear, the
editor should initiate discussion on the list, and, in the meanwhile,
edit the document as best they see fit.

Re scope: *I* believe the primary purpose of this specificiation is to
define the referent of "text/html" as used in a variety of Internet
protocols, including http and (most likely) email.

If this is "text/html; version=2.0" I think that's acceptable, but
calling it "HTML/2.0" is just confusing.

I think it would be useful to eliminate language that talks about "a
browser" or "a WWW client" and instead use the suggested term "user
agent". (I believe that this is primarily in the discussion of <FORM>,
where it is important to outline the expected behavior of the user
agent, as well as the appearance of the text/html when rendered.)

I'm wary of putting too much energy into trying to further refine and
define the versioning strategy; the requirements are primarily
non-technical (what is 'widely implemented'?) and dependent on events
that are outside of our control (release schedules for various
software products).

Instead, lets just focus on resolving ambiguities and infelicitous
wordings. I think 24 days is enough time to do at least two review