HTML 2.0 LAST CALL: Hyperlinking, Forms, Elements

Daniel W. Connolly (
Wed, 31 May 95 12:52:07 EDT

OK folks, I'm done. Well... I made quite a few edits, and I expect
some feedback. But I'm quite happy with the document as it now stands,
except that I don't have a nice plain text version ready yet. So I
didn't really make the May 31 deadline. (of course the sun hasn't set
yet!) But I'll have the internet draft submitted within a couple

**** HOW TO GET IT ****

As always, start at:

I think most folks will want the postscript to pore over:
-rw-r--r-- 1 connolly www 303950 May 31 04:05

It's generated from TeX, and previews nicely with ghostview. So I
don't expect "postscript woes," but I'm not betting big money

It's also available in all these formats:

connolly@beach ../html-spec[749] ls -l html-spec.*
-rw-r--r-- 1 connolly www 215404 May 31 04:05 html-spec.dvi
-rw-r--r-- 1 connolly www 115067 May 31 04:04
-rw-r--r-- 1 connolly www 303950 May 31 04:05
-rw-r--r-- 1 connolly www 148620 May 31 04:13 html-spec.rtf
-rw-r--r-- 1 connolly www 4600 May 31 04:03 html-spec.sgm
-rw-r--r-- 1 connolly www 128097 May 31 04:04 html-spec.texi
-rw-r--r-- 1 connolly www 117487 May 31 04:05 html-spec.txt

For folks that want the whole HTML tree, and for the SGML enthusiast,
the tar file including all of the above (except RTF) is available:
-rw-r--r-- 1 connolly www 261252 May 31 04:05 html-spec-19950531.tar.gz

Speaking of SGML enthusiasts: Joe: could you spin another nifty plain
text from the SGML?


Speak now or forever hold your peace. I made a good faith effort to
incorporate all comments submitted to this point. If you've submitted
comments, check to see if they've been addressed. If not, resubmit
them. Ideally, I'd like to see:

In-Reply-To: <the-message-id-of-your-original-comments>
Subject: RE: whatever it was

You ninny! I sent you these comments three times:

The May 31 document still says:
| 1.1. Scope
| HTML has been in use by the World-Wide Web (WWW) global
| information initiative since 1990.

and it's wrong. Here's a little test document to
demonstrate the problem:


So what it should say is:
1.1. Scope
HTML has been in use by the World-Wide Web (WWW) global
information initiative since 1989.

I don't know how long we have to let this document settle before we
decide it's fully baked and ready for submission as an RFC, but I'm
hoping for a few days or a week or two. (Eric: can we do that?)

So in the interest of time, please keep your comments focused. And
remember: for bonus points: please suggest replacement text! (and
always excerpt the original, citing the revision date and preferably a

*** WHAT'S NEW ***

I substantially revised the "Elements" sections, added a section on
hyperlinking in general, and essentially rewrote the forms stuff. I'm
pretty sure there were no technical changes: just massive editorial
cleanup. I think the result is MUCH better. See what you think.

I did both the non-forms and forms edits in one fell swoop. I didn't
really mess with the "proposed" and "obsolete" appendices. Maybe I
should, but I don't really mind letting them rot, to be truthful.

Here are some recent change log entries:

revision 1.6
date: 1995/05/31 08:03:42; author: connolly; state: Exp; lines: +2 -5
May 31 release!

* using TeX to generate postscript

* Reorganized, revised whole "Elements" section
- tag names in section titles for reference
- removed verbage about syntax: read the DTD!

* reduced "level" verbage: level 1/2 only. No level 0

* removed some of the PRE WIDTH verbage.

* updated status

* added "Hyperlinks" section
- expanded examples

* rewrote forms section
- expanded example

* removed Version parameter from MIME type info
revision 1.5
date: 1995/05/26 21:29:51; author: connolly; state: Exp; lines: +29 -5
ISO10646 stuff
updated Status
corrected SGML comments stuff
updated references stuff: how to integrate URL links in this DTD?
revision 1.4
date: 1995/05/06 00:18:34; author: connolly; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1
* changed discussion of P in PRE to be a note

* a bunch of typos and terminology fixups

* removed bit about define/require http support

* character encoding -> character encoding scheme
(this was mostly done before: just finished it here)

* cleaned up default values of MIME content type parameters

* start tag -> start-tag

* character number -> code position

* security consideration about forms content confidentiality added

* SGML document is a sequence of chars, rather than set of entities.

* </p> added to 1st example

* parse tree figure turned sideways

* filled in some SGML section references