to RFC or not (was: Re: Toward Closure on HTML )

Martijn Koster <>
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 10:51:25 --100
Message-id: <>
Precedence: bulk
From: Martijn Koster <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: to RFC or not (was: Re: Toward Closure on HTML )
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1677

In your elaborate message you wrote:


> Making HTML an internet standards-track RFC involves more overhead
> than is warranted. In the future, the HTML specification will be
> published as informational RFCs (FYI documents) from the WWW team at
> CERN. 

I'm not sufficiently familiar with the standards-track, to judge how
much overhead there would be. However, I have some concerns about

- My impression is that FYI's aren't standards. Not having something
  marked as an international standard will seriously hamper acceptance
  by corporate people. While some might consider this a feature I
  think it would be nice to create an environment where we can have
  supported and financed products and services.

- Becuase FYI don't go through the standards process they are not as
  fixed, and could be updated anytime. While some might consider this
  a feature because it allows good ideas to flourish, it makes it
  impossible to write compliant documents and software (ie the situation
  we're in now).

- Because they are posted by a particular group they aren't
  independent. This puts a burden on that group, and could mean the
  standard evolves in a particular way not optimally beneficial to the
  community at large. (I know they're good guys, I do, honest.)

I would really like to have RFC's for HTTP/HTML/HTML+, with defined
forums to discuss issues, ensured follow-ups, and defined time
schedules for actually deciding on something.

-- Martijn
X-400: C=GB; A= ; P=Nexor; O=Nexor; S=koster; I=M
X-500: c=GB@o=NEXOR Ltd@cn=Martijn Koster