W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > January to March 1997

RE: Open Issues -- Attributes

From: Yaron Goland <yarong@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 16:32:39 -0800
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-44-MSG-970213003239Z-4171@INET-03-IMC.itg.microsoft.com>
To: "'Larry Masinter'" <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
Cc: Thomas Reardon <thomasre@microsoft.com>, Alex Hopmann <alexhop@microsoft.com>, "'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'" <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>, "'Ralph Swick (E-mail)'" <swick@w3.org>
Your concerns regarding the protocol design of the previous WC have been
dutifully addressed, much to the detriment of my blood pressure. =) The
new spec gets rid of all the ugly stuff such as the three different
mechanisms for including data, the HTML wrapping issues, etc. The new
spec is its own SGML DTD which can, upon demand, be inserted into an
HTML document, but is actually defined independently of HTML. I am
currently beating on the various authors to make a copy of the
specification available so we can all revel in its genius.
		Yaron


>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Larry Masinter [SMTP:masinter@parc.xerox.com]
>Sent:	Wednesday, February 12, 1997 1:16 PM
>To:	Yaron Goland
>Cc:	Thomas Reardon; Alex Hopmann; 'w3c-dist-auth@w3.org'
>Subject:	Re: Open Issues -- Attributes
>
>Yaron Goland wrote:
>> 
>>  .......   I believe that the Web Collections spec is our best
>> hope for a unified frame work for meta data. It has been completely
>> re-written. It is still not clear who the final authors will be but
>> SoftQuad, the W3C, IBM, Apple, and Microsoft are all working feverishly
>> away on the draft.
>>         Yaron
>
>Despite the creditionals of the organizations who employ the authors
>of "Web Collections", and the fact that SoftQuad, the W3C, IBM, Apple,
>and Microsoft are all reputable organizations, the quality of the
>previous "Web Collections" spec doesn't fill me with cheerful 
>anticipation that the next version is our best hope for a
>"uniform frame work for meta data"[sic].
>
>Of course, we can judge this when we ourselves can see the
>"completely re-written" specification. (If you completely
>rewrite a spec, is it the same spec?)
>
>But most of the problems with the previous spec were not in the
>writing of it but in the actual protocol element it described.
>
>Regards,
>
>Larry
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 1997 19:51:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:43:42 GMT