Dan Connolly (
Wed, 5 Apr 95 22:03:17 EDT

Walt Houser at the IETF writes:
> >I am now curious as to the new HTML 3.0. I'm not quite clear what its
> >new features are. I hear there is a method to inserting a background on
> Dan or Dave, could you post the html wg agenda as it summarizes the proposed
> functionality quite succinctly.

also at:

Agenda for APP html Hypertext Markup Language WG

Wednesday, April 5, 1995
1530-1730 Afternoon Session

For the first session, I'd just like to discuss the various proposed
features, their complexity, and their maturity, and the market
demand/activity. In the second session, I'd like to work toward
deciding which features should go in which specs, and by when.

05 Agenda check & approval of last meeting's minutes

15 Navigational idioms
(i.e. bookmarks, TOC, HOME, Banner)

20 Forms and interactive applications
-- file upload
-- client-side image maps
-- scripting (safe-tcl, java) (suggest: OUT OF SCOPE for HTML)

20 Tables: what are we after?
-- enough to eliminate the current kludges in forms etc.
-- parity with word processors (current proposal is here)

20 Math: what do we need? how much does it cost, once you've done tables?

20 StyleSheets
suggest: out of scope for HTML, but we should provide
extensibility (e.g. ID, CLASS, STYLE)

20 Internationalization: encodings, charsets, languages, and writing

Thursday, April 6, 1995
0930-1130 Morning Sesssion (mbone)

10 HTML 2.0 terminology: user agent, character encoding, ...
conformance, closure.

10 char set issues:
2.0: model defined, charsets other than ISO-8859-1 reserved
for future use, i.e. unspecified.

2.1 revision for more complete charset discussion? (e.g. Unicode)

10 File upload: orthogonal to 2.0, might as well be part of 3.0.
Independendent specificaion is valuable.

30 Table Deployment.
Is a 2.0+tables spec effort worth the effort?
If no 2.0+tables spec, what do we do with browsers that
implement 2.0+tables, but not 3.0?

30 HTML 3.0 requirements. Suggestions:
enough tables to satisfy the needs of FORMs applications
Capture existing navigation idioms
(i.e. bookmarks, TOC, HOME, Banner)
parity with major word-processors.
(e.g. sufficiently rich tables, math)
extensibility in the direction of stylesheets
(i.e. ID, class attrs, STYLE element)
extensibility in the direction of non-western writing systems
(i.e. LANG attr. Is it enough? Can we defer this?)

30 Liason activity: scripting languages, graphics formats,
Unicode, HyTime, MID, MIMESGML, etc.