Re: Defined facilities for the extension of HTML

Roger Price (
Wed, 29 Mar 95 22:11:59 EST

Terry Allen <> writes
> ... and while I understand
> what ISO's position is, the real truth is that you have to make the
> DIS and eventually the standard available over the Net if you expect
> it to be taken seriously for WWW apps.

>From a personal point of view I agree with you completely.
Officially, the SC29/WG12 working group is in the process of building
up a case to be taken to the ISO for their consideration, and
hopefully their approval. In the meantime you will find the MHEG DIS
proposed text at the private ftp site used by acredited NB members,
and members of liaison organisations such as the Internet Society:

Balloting is still underway on this text, but it is already clear that
NBs want a lot of improvements.

Whether MHEG is taken seriously for WWW applications is less important
for the WWW than an explicit definition of the way in which html is to
be extended. That was the point I was trying to make.

As editor of the future Part 2, SGML representation, I am in a
"chicken or egg" situation. I need real IETF interest to make the
Part 2 either freely available, or a joint IETF/ISO/IEC text, and I
need a freely available text to gain IETF interest. Any suggestion
you might have to solve this would be most welcome.

Les chiens aboient, mais la caravane passe.
Dogs bark, but the caravan roll on. A. Gide.