Re: Standards Track or Informational?

Eric W. Sink (eric@spyglass.com)
Wed, 16 Nov 94 15:48:36 EST

This reminds me, I think we forgot to remove all the mentions of RFC.
Roy's been passing along info to make this document legal with all the
IETF BS, and I don't think we've done that yet.

>I think we should do HTML 2.0 as an informational RFC. Mostly, it says
>to information providers "here's what's in the hands of end-users
>today."
>
>The initial round of commercial browsers is already out. By the time
>they're considering standards conformance issues for their next
>release, I'd like them to be looking at the 2.1 document, which should
>explicitly address interoperability between old clients and new
>documents and such, along with &nbsp, &reg, &copy, some character
>set/encoding issues, maybe a superscript/subscript element and other
>minor changes.

Do informational RFC's have an disadvantages which apply here?

--
Eric W. Sink, Software Engineer --  eric@spyglass.com 217-355-6000 ext 237
I don't speak for Spyglass.


Announcing: Kellie Elizabeth Sink, born November 1st at 2:06 pm! 6 lb 11 oz