Re: HTML 2.0 draft not ready for RFC status

Eric W. Sink (
Thu, 23 Mar 95 17:58:27 EST

>Now, before people start complaining about how I'm just bitching and
>not providing the actual corrections, let me explain.\

On the contrary -- if the document is inadequate, then your effort in
examining it is appreciated.

>Instead, I would like to offer to make my changes directly to the
>FrameMaker version -- all that I would need is the MIF file from draft 01.


Draft 00 was produced from the frame file by saving as text, then doing some
hand editing, and then running it through a program I wrote to add the
headers with the page numbers and such. Draft 01 was produced by manually
editing the actual .TXT file from draft 00.

In other words, there is a Frame file, but it is out of date. I intended
to update it after the document edits were done. I don't want to cover all
the whys in this public forum, but we never got an automated mechanism
together for doing the Frame->text conversion cleanly.

>I would then restructure and reformat the specification along the same
>lines as the HTTP/1.0 specification (i.e., using the same formats) and
>produce a base copy prior to making any content changes. Then, I would
>make my own content changes (with change bars on) and make both versions
>available at my web/ftp site.

This sounds attractive, since I like very much the way that the HTTP/1.0
spec is formatted.

>After that, I think Dan Connolly should
>take up the Author's chair again

Ah, I was wondering when the uprising was coming. I was expecting to be
'fired' eventually, but I didn't think it would be so soon. And I was just
starting to enjoy the job. :-)

I assume that Dan's new role at W3C would mean that he has significant time
resources to devote to things like this. Time pressure was a big problem
for Dan at Hal, and it's been an obstacle for me as well.

>and produce an HTML version of the spec
>(Henrik can provide help with that because it would use the same WebMaker
>configuration as the existing HTTP spec).

If the Frame version is updated, doing the HTML version is no problem for
us. We have WebMaker too, and have produced HTML versions of previous
releases of the spec.

>My part in the above can be accomplished this weekend if I receive a
>copy of the MIF file by Friday night. So, the question is this:
>Is the above plan acceptable to the WG? And, if so, can Eric and folks
>at Spyglass provide me with the MIF?

Given the disclaimers above, I'll provide you with whatever you need.

>the existing draft will not pass
>muster with the IESG (it won't even come close).

If this is true, why did the IESG not wave a red flag BEFORE the Last Call?

Eric W. Sink, Senior Software Engineer --