Re: Perceived Consensus: The META element stays in the Proposed section

• Mail folder: html-archive
• Next message: Eric W. Sink: "OOPS! META got promoted; why did nbsp go away?"
• Previous message: Daniel W. Connolly: "Re: Perceived Consensus: The overview and the DTD reference will stay "

Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 16:38:07 EDT
Message-id: <9410072037.AA01140@ulua.hal.com>
Reply-To: connolly@hal.com
Originator: html-wg@oclc.org
Sender: html-wg@oclc.org
Precedence: bulk
From: "Daniel W. Connolly" <connolly@hal.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <html-wg@oclc.org>
Subject: Re: Perceived Consensus: The META element stays in the Proposed section 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: HTML Working Group (Private)

In message <9410072025.AA27439@hook.spyglass.com>, Eric W. Sink writes:
>
>I have not seen the nearly-unanimous support that I think should be necessary
>to move the META element from the proposed section to the normal sections of
>the HTML 2.0 draft spec.  Unless I am rapidly convinced that I am perceiving
>the consensus of the group incorrectly, it will stay as it is.

I don't think you'll see too many folks jumping up and down about
it (except perhaps tireless Roy...), but I have yet to see a single
objection raised.

It's reasonably well specified, and it allows folks to do stuff that
they wouldn't otherwise be able to do. (Well... they could do it,
but they'd have to hack...).

There's a lot of disucssion about URCs, surrogate records,
metainformation, object headers, indexing structures, etc.
This gives folks a "standard" way to experiment. You might say
that we shouldn't standardize on this until we know exactly how
it will turn out. That's fair...

But I see more to be gained than to be lost by including the
current META proposal in 2.0.

If META can't go in now, then when? How long must a proposal
stay in purgatory before it can get into the standard?

I think META has passed the "trial" period.

Dan