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

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Apr 94-present
• Next message: Marc Andreessen: "Re: to RFC or not (was: Re: Toward Closure on HTML ) "
• Previous message: Jay C. Weber: "Re: Toward Closure on HTML"
• Maybe in reply to: Marc Andreessen: "to RFC or not (was: Re: Toward Closure on HTML )"

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 03:45:55 --100
Message-id: <94Apr5.184238pdt.2732@golden.parc.xerox.com>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: masinter@parc.xerox.com
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: Re: to RFC or not (was: Re: Toward Closure on HTML )
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 372

Personally, I hope we can just learn from our problems on the URL
RFC, and move forward more briskly with HTML and HTTP. It may well be
that the first step in that process is an informational RFC (FYI) that
outlines current practice.

Part of moving forward more briskly in the URI group has been to try
to separate out the functional requirements from the specification.