Some comments and responses below...
>
> I suspect that most of the dust has settled after what may have been a hectic
> month of April for some. Was anyone courageous enough to attend the IETF
> meeting, the WWW conference, AND WebWorld? :-)
>
> I've been talking with a number of people about the direction of this group,
> and I've been hearing a lot of good ideas. It's time to start planning
> and talking about those ideas. I'm just going to give the briefest of
> summaries here, and you'll be seeing more messages from me about this
> next week.
>
> First, the HTML 2 draft has landed once again in Dan Connolly's capable
> hands, and he is aware of a couple of items which he needs to polish
> before we tell the IESG that we're done with Last Call. Make no mistake --
> HTML 2.0 is done. We're just traversing the deeper layers of "done". :-)
Does that mean that y'all think that the character set questions
can be dealt with in a way that allows us to be prepared for
full internationalization in a later revision of the spec?
I'll be more than happy to hear that the answer is yes, but I had
the sense that we are not there yet -- even though we seem to
be converging on "there".
And, not that it is my intention to hold things up, but it seemed to
me that we did not achieve "rough consensus" at the meeting in Danvers.
Are we required to achieve such consensus at an IETF meeting,
or can that be done through mail?
>
> More importantly, a very encouraging consequence of the Danvers meeting was
> the consensus that standardizing revisions of HTML beyond 2.0 should proceed
> forward in bite sized pieces. The gist here is that we should write documents
> describing the things we can agree on, as they reach Rough Consensus. This
> will keep the group chugging along much more briskly than if we tried to
> come to agreement on the entire HTML 3 draft all at once. More details
> later.
>
> Accordingly, it is time to revise the group's charter a little bit, with
> new milestones. No major changes -- just to keep things current. More
> details later. :-)
>
> For the purpose of planning, I'd like to get some indication of how many
> people will be able to attend the IETF meeting in Stockholm in July. I've
> mentioned to a few people that I planned to attend, but then I checked the
> airline fares! Basically, if you're in the US/Canada, it's impossible to
> avoid a total trip cost of well over $3,000. That price tag for attending
> a ~4 hour meeting is not going to make a lot of economic sense for most
> people here in North America.
You can be sure that SCO will not be sending me to Stockholm in July.
Sorry. I'd really like to say that I will be there to help out, but ...
> Please, I mean no offense to European participants in this group. Nonetheless,
> I must ask: Will we have enough people there to justify an HTML WG session?
> I'm not an IETF old-timer. Do the meetings at European sites typically
> have lower attendance? Any way you slice it, many of the members of this
> WG are located in North America, and the sheer cost and/or time committment
> of attending a meeting in Europe will result in a lower average attendance.
> If I can get an idea now as to the impact, we can plan more effectively.
===========================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murray C. Maloney Internet: murray@sco.com
Technical Publications Writer/Architect Uucp: ...uunet!sco!murray
SCO Canada, Inc. My Phone: (416) 960-4031
130 Bloor Street West, 10th Floor Fax: (416) 922-2704
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1N5 SCO Phone: (416) 922-1937
===========================================================================
Disclaimer: I'm speaking for myself. 'T ain't nobody else to blame but me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor member of Davenport Group Member of IETF HTML Working Group
===========================================================================