Re: HTML 2.0 draft not ready for RFC status

Roy T. Fielding (fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU)
Thu, 23 Mar 95 19:24:02 EST

>>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.
> Well...
> 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.

*groan* I was afraid of that (figuring that's why there was no PS version).
I can do the restoration from the text version -- it won't make all that
much difference, really.

>>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. :-)

Your not getting fired, Eric -- just put out to pasture. ;-)
No -- in reality it is generally not a good idea for the Chair of a WG
to be the one responsible for putting the document together, since it is
the Chair's job to whip the authors into doing it right and on time,
and keeping the discussion focused.

> 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.

Yep, that's why I am suggesting it now -- Dan should have *plenty* of time. ;)

>>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.

Ummm, I guess I have it already, unless you have a list of things that
need to be changed but haven't.

>>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?

Because that's not how it works. The Chair is responsible up until the
Last Call, and only after the Last Call does the IESG state an opinion
(in fact, since most of the IESG are continually busy-as-hell, it is rare
for anyone but the immediate WG advisor to have read the draft before
the last call). The last call itself is primarily a warning to us
procrastinators that this is our last chance to review the draft.

....Roy T. Fielding Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA