Release of HTML 2.0 document for editing

Daniel W. Connolly (
Tue, 23 Aug 1994 01:10:40 +0200


[Sorry for the wide distribution, but the mailing
list has never really been announced -- this is supposed to be a
public review, so I don't want anybody to feel left out.]

OK... the stuff is available via FTP, in HTML, Frame, and Postscript.

Enclosed you will find:

"August 22, 1994 Release Notes"
$Id: README.html,v 1.1 1994/08/22 20:07:34 connolly Exp $

Here are the action items, as I recall:

* Decide what format to keep "the truth" in.
(if somebody can produce HTML and plaintext from Frame,
I suggest frame. Otherwise, I suggest HTML. What a pain!)

I spent way too much time on this. I never found anything
I was happy with.

Locally, the "truth" is a strange Frame/SGML mix.
Everything but the tables are in SGML that gets converted
back and forth to Frame for editing. The tables never get
converted to SGML -- they're external editities. I had
hoped to convert the "truth" to a more suitable DTD like
the QWERTZ/LaTeX DTD or the Snafu DTD, but...

* Document production: figure out how to make plain text,
HTML, and postscript, suitable for submission as an RFC
Volunteers: <>, <>

* Frontmatter: about this document/status/etc.
Voluteers: Larry Masinter <>

* Character set sections:
Volunteers: Murray Maloney <>

* Forms sections:
Volunteers: Paul Burchard <> (Alan Braverman)

* HTML/HTTP interaction section:
Volunteers: Eric Sink <>

* Troll through the archives and find any other unresolved issues

* General editorial review
Voluteers: Peter Flynn -- HTML educator <>
"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@simplon.ICS.UCI.EDU>

I suggest we proceed with these action items roughly in order. First,
we have to figure out some of the document production issues so that
folks know what format to do their edits in.

Then, the editors proceed in series, thusly:

* download the release
* edit it to taste
* produce postscript and HTML (and eventually text) for review
* send mail to, announcing the anonymous FTP location
of the new version
* The WG reviews it, and either:
* your edits are approved and the next editor starts
* your edits are deemed incomplete and you get another try, or
* your edits are rejected and the next editor starts from the
previous version

I listed the volunteers as I remember them. I don't have good notes.
Do NOT assume the above listed volunteer has made a commitment based
on this notice alone. (i.e. don't assume that because I put a name
by an action item that we don't need anybody else's help)

I am soliciting new, public commitments of the following form:

"I am Fred from WidgetCo. I can commit to an edit of the
forms section, starting on or after Aug 30, to be released one
week later. I require the frontmatter and document production issues
to be resolved before I begin."

That is:
* who are you?
* what will you do?
* when can you start?
* when can you finish?
* what do you need before you start?

DON'T send them to me. Send them to the WG at large. This is a public
document, a public working group, and a public commitment.

p.s. I aplogize for taking so long to release the document. I had hoped
to resolve the document production issues before releasing it, but that
turned out to be a bad idea. Had I known I was going to punt those issues,
I could have released it two weeks ago.

p.p.s. HELP! I can use all the help I can get on this, especially with
brining folks up to speed, as this group changes from a closed review
committee to an open working group, and lots more folks start getting
in on the game.

I get a lot of "can we add X to HTML?" mail, and as I have warned
folks that HTML 2.0 comments may be redistributed, I am just going to
forward such questions to the working group, with the understanding
that someone in the group will provide a much more patient and
thorough explanation than I would.

p.p.p.s. This group needs an acting chair for a month or two. TimBL is
busy. REALLY busy. And I'd like to get some stuff wrapped up quickly,
but I'm in the middle of a product release here at HaL, and I can't
commit to drive this train to the station. Anyone? Please?

Daniel W. Connolly "We believe in the interconnectedness of all things"
Software Engineer, Hal Software Systems, OLIAS project (512) 834-9962 x5010

Content-Type: text/html

<title>HTML 2.0 August 22 Release Notes</title>
<base href="">


<h1>August 22, 1994 Release Notes</h1>

Daniel W. Connolly<br><br>
$Id: README.html,v 1.1 1994/08/22 20:07:34 connolly Exp $

<p> At the July, 1994 Toronto IETF meeting, I presented a draft of the
HTML 2.0 specification in hopes that it would be considered for
submission as an internet RFC. The working group decided that the
document was not ready for publication -- that it needed significant
editorial, as well as minor technical, polishing.

<p> In spite of the fact that my resources for this project had been
exhausted, I agreed to coordinate the revisions. This was a
mistake. My resources for this project have <em>really</em> been

<p> I am releasing the HTML 2.0 materials, such as they are:


<li> <a href="html-19940822-ps.gz">The postscript document,
gzipped</a>. We're not quite sure this exactly matches the Frame
version or the HTML version. The process of producing the PS and
HTML is somewhat buggy and tedious.

<li> <a href="html-19940822-html.tar.gz">A gzip'd tar file of the
document in HTML format</a>. Ironically, the HTML used here is
not conforming to the document itself. It's generated by some
tools that I didn't write. This is the same as <a
the tree on the HaL HTTP server</a>.

<li> <a href="html-19940822-frame.tar.gz">The document as a FrameMaker
book</a>. This is an intermediate product between an SGML editing
system and the postscript output. It may, however, be the mose
useful format for many purposes.

<li> <a href="html-19940822-sgml.tar.gz">The SGML representable portions
of the specification</a>; that is, the DTD. This part is well tested.


<h2>What's Left To Do?</h2>

<p> My notes on all this are very much scattered, but here's what comes
to mind:


<li> Rearrange the info/about/TOC/status sections

<li> Fix up the character set discussions

<li> Fix up the forms sections

<li> Remove references to NCSA image tutorials

<li> Add a section on HTML and HTTP interactions (inline images, forms, etc.)

<li> Fix the ISOlat1 declaration in the DTD

<li> Revise the terms/references section



<p> For more information, see <a
href="">the HTML 2.0
review materials</a>.