Re: HTML/SGML/charsets

Roy T. Fielding (fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU)
Fri, 31 Mar 95 16:42:57 EST

Terry writes:
> Roy writes: ...
> | Which is an invalid statement for a standards track IETF document.
> | If there is a discrepancy between the draft and SGML, it must be fixed
> | in the draft. THERE IS NO RECOURSE TO ANY OTHER DOCUMENT EXCEPT THE DRAFT,
> | unless, that is, ISO would like to place SGML under IETF version control.
> | If the SGML standard changes, it will not affect the HTML RFC until that
> | RFC is updated to reflect the change. That is why I deleted it,
> | and why it will stay deleted.
>
> I really don't understand the argument that there is no recourse
> to the SGML standard. That suggests to me that we have to include
> the whole text of that standard here (which would be a violation of
> copyright ...).

No, it just means that HTML 2.0 is defined by what is present in the
HTML 2.0 RFC. We can reference the SGML standard, and use the SGML
formal notation for defining the syntax of HTML, but the SGML standard
cannot override the content of the HTML 2.0 RFC.
If the SGML standard conflicts with this document, then

a) the HTML RFC must be updated, or
b) the SGML standard is ignored

There is no other option. Saying that the SGML standard is definitive
invalidates the specification as an IETF standards track document.
That does not stop us from insisting that it be conformant before the
RFC is accepted and whenever it is being updated.

....Roy T. Fielding Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
<fielding@ics.uci.edu>
<URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/dir/grad/Software/fielding>