Standards Track or Informational?

Daniel W. Connolly (
Wed, 16 Nov 94 14:53:37 EST

I tried to open up this discussion earlier, but ...

The Nov 16 draft says it's a "Standards Track" draft.

As I recall (can't remember the source), a standards-track RFC can't
be superceded for a year after publication.

Given that we expect HTML 2.1 to follow on soon after 2.0, do we want
HTML 2.0 to be the standards-track RFC, or just an informational RFC?

I think we should do HTML 2.0 as an informational RFC. Mostly, it says
to information providers "here's what's in the hands of end-users

The initial round of commercial browsers is already out. By the time
they're considering standards conformance issues for their next
release, I'd like them to be looking at the 2.1 document, which should
explicitly address interoperability between old clients and new
documents and such, along with &nbsp, &reg, &copy, some character
set/encoding issues, maybe a superscript/subscript element and other
minor changes.

"Never trust a release with a last digit of 0"