Outstanding Issues for 2.0 RFC (charsets?)

Daniel W. Connolly (connolly@hal.com)
Wed, 8 Feb 95 03:51:48 EST

In message <9502031803.AA01961@hal.com>, html-wg@oclc.org writes:
>Here's what needed to be done after the San Jose IETF meeting:
>1. Get a new DTD which included the ICADD stuff, and had line lengths <72
>2. Make a few edits, all relatively minor.

Does this mean that the character set issues will be deferred until
the 2.1 version?

What ever happened to Larry M's suggested edits? (I wouldn't call
them "relatively minor" by a long shot.)

I hear a lot of concern about character sets and internationization.
Folks have alleged that "current practice" is more than just ASCII
and Latin1.

On the other hand, for the 2.0 document, I'm inclined to "shoot the
engineers and ship it." The 2.0 document is intended to capture
the "current practice" as of about June 1994.

I'd like to see the 2.0 document go out essentially as-is. It's something
to look back on, to see what practices we like and don't like, and
what ways of describing/specifying those practices we like and don't like.

Then I'd like to see concise, concrete proposals to address specific issues:

* MIME charsets and SGML character sets
* Non-western writing sysmtes (directions, LANG attributes, etc.)
* interoperability issues w.r.t. tables
(how do we avoid "click _here_ if your browser supports tables"?)
* math
* style sheets
* conformance testing

And rather than updating the humongous 2.0 document w.r.t each of
the above issues, I suggest that we chop the 2.0 document into parts,
so that we can move quicker.

Eventually, we want the HTML spec documents to reflect the state of
the art, no?