Re: Looking toward the IETF meeting

Eric W. Sink (
Tue, 29 Nov 94 13:23:40 EST

Murray wrote:

>Since the ICADD extensions did not make it into HTML 2.0,
>may I suggest that HTML 2.1 should incorporate ICADD extensions
>and be submitted as soon as practically convenient?

Forgive the lack of IETF experience in this WG chair. What is "HTML 2.0" ?
Did we just finish it, or did we just start it? I was under the impression
that what we sent as an Internet Draft was a "draft", and changes will be
made before we actually call it HTML 2.0. It is still not clear to me when
that time arrives, but I assumed it was tied to the time when this document
reaches RFC status.

To put it another way: We want HTML 2.0 to be an RFC, whichever track it
ends up in. Surely there will be opportunity for a few more changes
between the Internet Draft and the RFC, right?

>When will PostScript and HTML versions of the official Internet Draft
>be available to members of this mailing list?

This week.

Eric W. Sink, Senior Software Engineer --
I don't speak for Spyglass.

You know, a bottle of champagne in space would burst...