What's next? HTML 2.0 & HTML > 2.0

Tue, 29 Nov 94 23:43:33 EST


Here's what I think and what I think I may be hearing others saying.

This is based on the following assumptions:

- what was sent to IETF is a draft, look at the other drafts, many are
on revision 6-9, some even 10 (what a thought for our WG! :( )

- we need to stop work on HTML 2.0

- ICADD is *very* important, non-controversial, and being #Fixed attrs
will only help not hurt any application

- we've done all of the hard work on ICADD, it was only editorial time
constraints that keep it out this draft

Therefore, I propose that we release one last draft of HTML 2.0. The
only changes to the new draft will be the addition of the ICADD #Fixed
attrs in the DTD and fix obvious spelling/grammar errors. We declare
HTML 2.0 done and move on to what's next.

Excerpts and responses to recurrent ideas from other responses:

> From: Internet-Drafts@CNRI.Reston.VA.US
> Title : HyperText Markup Language Specification - 2.0
> Filename : draft-ietf-html-spec-00.txt

See the '-00.', let's make a '-01.' and stop there. Some wrk grps are
up to '-10.' Ahhhhh!

> From: eric@spyglass.com (Eric W. Sink)
> Most regrettably, the DTD changes for ICADD did not make it in
> yet. ...
> but something had to be submitted to the IETF yesterday, so
> we sent the best thing we could.

Thanks! Can we add the ICADD DTD changes before IETF?

> From: Murray Maloney <murray@sco.COM>
> 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?

Let's make the simple ICADD changes to the current draft and then be
done with it. Who knows what HTML > 2.0 will be.

> From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
> The HTML 2.0 document has missed its marked window, in my

The HTML 2.0 document has already caused lots of changes. I'm starting
to see actual validated documents out of the blue. Big thanks to Dan
for his validation service.

> I see two options:

> 1. Continue to edit the 2.0 document until all the little nits are
> hammered out. Sort through the boat-load of documents resulting from

Please no.

> 2. Let the 2.0 document go. Publish it as an informational RFC. Let it

Please yes. Can we just make the simple ICADD mods before saying good

> Start fresh with 2.1 -- the spec that the _next_ release of commercial
> browsers will support. Add the ICADD stuff. Add &nbsp; and
> &shy;. Maybe add <super> and <sub>. Maybe even add tables.

Let's not hold ICADD back, its too important. I suspect that once
HTML > 2.0 discussion starts, i yi yi, stand back.

> But the critical thing about this document is endorsement of the major

And how does HaL feel?

> From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
> practice" and putting ICADD into 2.1, as long as we really kept 2.1
> simple enough to reasonably expect most browsers to upgrade quickly.

It may be simpler to just add ICADD to 2.0. We can't guarantee what
HTML > 2.0 will be, when, where. We only know if :)

From: Terry Allen <terry@ora.com>
> The only item on Larry's list I really want to get in 2.0 is
> ICADD extensions. Those are completely noncontroversial and
> ready to go. ...
> I differ only in wanting ICADD in 2.0. This is too important to
> let go, and benefits not only the handicapped but all of us who
> otherwise need to make special arrangements to supply the
> handicapped with accessible text. The opinions of the present
> browser vendors on this point should not be decisive, as adding
> the attributes to the DTD does not affect their products.


> From: mag@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Tom Magliery)
> I hereby speak for one browser "vendor" to say that we also would like
> to see ICADD in 2.0. (Also, I think that the opinions of browser


Jeff Suttor
Voice: +1 310 206 5565 Fax: +1 310 206 4109
<URL http://WWW.Library.UCLA.Edu/~jsuttor/jsuttor.html>

IETF HTML-WG (http://www.hal.com/%7Econnolly/html-spec/)
SGML Open (http://www.sgmlopen.org)
Davenport (http://www.ora.com/davenport/README.html)