Re: Looking toward the IETF meeting

Eric W. Sink (eric@spyglass.com)
Wed, 30 Nov 94 09:49:54 EST

>Yes, and your impression is correct as well. It will probably need about
>5-6 drafts before it makes it through to RFC status. Even if all of us
>have agreed on the HTML 2.0 content, the details of grammar, word-smithing,
>and specificational correctness will result in many drafts.

That's good info. It would appear that we can stop working on HTML 2.0
when *we* are happy with it, and it will still require some of our editing
effort just to get it through the IETF pipeline.

>For instance, the corrections I submitted for the META description have
>still not made it into the draft.

(I'm happy to say that I knew this. My personal goal for this process is
that it never seems totally out of control.) Yes, that's one of several
outstanding changes that also need to make it into the spec. Time
constraints ate this one too.

>Worse, the text version has line-wrapped
>the text in a way that generated invalid SGML attributes. This is not
>surprising -- just a couple of the bumps in the specification process.

Oops. My fault on this one. Can you give line numbers of the problems?

--
Eric W. Sink, Senior Software Engineer --  eric@spyglass.com
I don't speak for Spyglass.


You know, a bottle of champagne in space would burst...