Re: HTML 2.0 draft not ready for RFC status

Eric W. Sink (
Fri, 24 Mar 95 09:05:54 EST

>*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.

The diffs between 00 and 01 were small.

>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.

Agreed. Besides, it's been my experience that it's difficult to really do
justice to both roles while still keeping up with a day 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.
>Yep, that's why I am suggesting it now -- Dan should have *plenty* of time. ;)

In fact, a while back, Dan specifically said that he would have more time
to take over the responsibilities of the document itself. It's a natural
transition, and I'm sure no one will have any objections.

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

Actually, I don't think you have the Frame file, do you?

Given the quality of the HTTP/1.0 draft which Roy is responsible for, I
think we as a WG would be crazy not to accept Roy's generous offer to do
some cleanup work on the document. It sounds like any changes Roy would
make will be either editorial or fixing small errors, and that no changes
in the specification would be introduced.

Barring any objections, I will make the Frame file available to Roy later today.

Eric W. Sink, Senior Software Engineer --