Re: Standards Track or Informational?

Murray Maloney (murray@sco.COM)
Wed, 16 Nov 94 16:10:20 EST

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "How prescriptive can/should we be? [Was: DL content model ]"
Previous message: Murray Maloney: "Re: DL content model"
Maybe in reply to: Daniel W. Connolly: "Standards Track or Informational?"
Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Standards Track or Informational?"

>
>
> > Given that we expect HTML 2.1 to follow on soon after 2.0, do we want
> > HTML 2.0 to be the standards-track RFC, or just an informational RFC?
> >
> > 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."
>
> Dan's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. I'd like to hear from some of
> the old hands at IETF matters, though... Larry? Tim?
>
> stu

I'll echo Stu's comment and questions.

Next message: Daniel W. Connolly: "How prescriptive can/should we be? [Was: DL content model ]"
Previous message: Murray Maloney: "Re: DL content model"
Maybe in reply to: Daniel W. Connolly: "Standards Track or Informational?"
Next in thread: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: Standards Track or Informational?"