- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Oct 1996 23:52:28 PDT
- To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
I said >> A feature like 'implements vendor-B version 2.0 variation of tables' >> shouldn't be standards track if vendor-B's version 2.0 variation of >> tables isn't. and Harald replied: > I think we have common practice that we DO include such things in > standards. with several examples. However, I was really trying to apply the same consideration to feature registration that seems to be happening with media type registration: shouldn't there be IETF features, vendor features, private features, experimental features, in the same way? It wasn't an issue of 'document reference' (I know that standards-track documents can reference non-standards-track documents). Larry
Received on Sunday, 6 October 1996 23:57:12 UTC