It is responsible for defining an internet media type, and part of that
specification must necessarily provide implementation hints for people
who wish to implement HTML UAs. It is not a full spec for an HTML UA,
sure, but the eventual RFC must include implementation hints. This is an
internet standard, not an ISO one; people are expected to implement it ;-)
> Now, SGML is like virginity in as much as an application
> can't be a little bit not SGML. It is SGML or it ain't.
Well in that case, as
a) HTML 2.0 is a definition of existing practice in mid-1994 and
b) HTML UA's accepted and processed XMP, LISTING and PLAINTEXT at
that date, and
c) These constructs, (PLAINTEXT in particular) are not SGML compliant,
and
d) These constructs were in the HTML 1.0 specifications, and
e) There should be a smooth transition strategy between 1.0, 2.0 and up
Then HTML 2.0 is not and cannot be fully SGML compliant
So we either accept that, in mid 94, HTML drew heavily on SGML but was
not in complete compliance with it, or we take the purist stance that
you suggest and remove all reference to SGML in the spec.
I suggest the former, pragmatic approach. The spec describes currently
implemented practice - "broad concensus and working code", it draws
heavily on SGML, full conformance is being worked towards, and in the
meantime certain constructs are deprecated because they break existing
SGML UAs.
That, I feel, is the best you are going to get at this stage. It does
not preclude transitioning towards full SGML compliance for 3.0, perhaps
even for 2.1 which I think we are all agreed is desirable and indeed
pretty much essential.
HTML 2.0 is probably a virgin, but admits to some heavy petting in the
past ;-)
> I don't think that it will prove helpful at all to divide
> the working group into camps which are at odds with each other.
Agreed. A spirit of pragmatism and flexibility will allow all the
various interests to co-habit while we get on with the job.
> > On the Internet, shit happens on a regular basis -- a standard which
> > is not capable of coping with that (and in a consistant manner) is not
> > worthy of becoming an Internet standard.
> I'm not sure what this means, but I don't think that
> it adds a lot to the discussion.
I think it adds a useful contextual reminder about what we are trying to
accomplish here, and that if anyone present does not see the clear
significance of "shit happens" when putting together a networking
standard, in particular an Internet one, they should go read a few RFCs
and a good general primer on networking. But I am sure that everyone
(including Murray) does see the relevance; there seems to be a generally
high level of technical competence in this group. So let's pull together
and get this 2.0 thing out the door.
-- Chris Lilley +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Technical Author, Manchester and North HPC Training & Education Centre| +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Computer Graphics Unit, | Email: Chris.Lilley@mcc.ac.uk | | Manchester Computing Centre, | Voice: +44 61 275 6045 | | Oxford Road, Manchester, UK.M13 9PL | Fax: +44 61 275 6040 | +-------------------------------------+ BioMOO: ChrisL | | URI: http://info.mcc.ac.uk/CGU/staff/lilley/lilley.html | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | "The first W in WWW will not wait." François Yergeau | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+