Re: Looking toward the IETF meeting

Terry Allen (terry@ora.com)
Tue, 29 Nov 94 16:30:01 EST

Dan writes:
| > 2. Let the 2.0 document go. Publish it as an informational RFC. Let it
| > be known that we tried real hard, but we were after a moving target,
| > and we never got all the editorial kinks out. But the DTD is
| > available: you can validate your documents against the official,
| > released, published, blessed, 2.0 DTD.
| > Start fresh with 2.1 -- the spec that the _next_ release of commercial
| > browsers will support. Add the ICADD stuff. Add   and
| > &shy;. Maybe add <super> and <sub>. Maybe even add tables.
| > Maybe trim some of the fluff out of the document. Maybe split the HTTP
| > interactions and such off into a "browser spec" ("WWW User Agent
| > Spec," more precisely.)
| >
| > I'd like to go with option 2.
| >
| > But the critical thing about this document is endorsement of the major
| > vendors. How do the folks from SoftQuad, NetScape, Spyglass, Spry,
| > EIT, MCC (the consortium in Austin, not Mosaic Comm Corp) etc. feel
| > about this? Which way should we go?

Murray writes:

| I agree with Dan that option (see below) is the way to go.
| That is, I don't care one way or another whether HTML 2.0
| becomes and Internet RFC or not. What is (was) important
| to me is to get the HTML 2.0 spec published and sanctioned
| by an appropriate body or group. I think that we have done that,
| simply by virtue of being accepted as an Internet Draft whose
| contributors include most of the "major vendors".
| I'd like to see us move on with the HTML 2.* series and HTML 3.0.
| I really think that that's what the market needs too.

I say yes, option 2. I don't see this as a missed opportunity,
and don't think Dan's work has been in vain in any respect. As
full SGML browsers are almost upon us, 2.1 and onward are another
sort of venture, volksDTDs for the future that may or may not be
accepted; but 2.0 cleans up the present, whether it's Informational
or a Standard.

I differ only in wanting ICADD in 2.0. This is too important to
let go, and benefits not only the handicapped but all of us who
otherwise need to make special arrangements to supply the
handicapped with accessible text. The opinions of the present
browser vendors on this point should not be decisive, as adding
the attributes to the DTD does not affect their products.

-- 
Terry Allen  (terry@ora.com)   O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
Editor, Digital Media Group    103A Morris St.
			       Sebastopol, Calif., 95472
A Davenport Group sponsor.  For information on the Davenport 
  Group see ftp://ftp.ora.com/pub/davenport/README.html
	or  http://www.ora.com/davenport/README.html