Dan Connolly (
Wed, 5 Apr 1995 22:01:03 +0500

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 22:01:03 +0500
From: (Dan Connolly)
Message-Id: <>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: HTML VWG Agenda
In-Reply-To: <>

Walt Houser at the IETF writes:
 > >I am now curious as to the new HTML 3.0.  I'm not quite clear what its 
 > >new features are.  I hear there is a method to inserting a background on 
 > Dan or Dave, could you post the html wg agenda as it summarizes the proposed 
 > functionality quite succinctly.

also at:

Agenda for APP    html      Hypertext Markup Language WG

Wednesday, April 5, 1995
1530-1730  Afternoon Session

For the first session, I'd just like to discuss the various proposed
features, their complexity, and their maturity, and the market
demand/activity. In the second session, I'd like to work toward
deciding which features should go in which specs, and by when.

05      Agenda check & approval of last meeting's minutes

15	Navigational idioms
		(i.e. bookmarks, TOC, HOME, Banner)

20      Forms and interactive applications
	      -- file upload
	      -- client-side image maps
	      -- scripting (safe-tcl, java) (suggest: OUT OF SCOPE for HTML)

20	Tables: what are we after?
		-- enough to eliminate the current kludges in forms etc.
		-- parity with word processors (current proposal is here)
		-- CALS

20      Math: what do we need? how much does it cost, once you've done tables?

20	StyleSheets
		suggest: out of scope for HTML, but we should provide
		extensibility (e.g. ID, CLASS, STYLE)

20      Internationalization: encodings, charsets, languages, and writing

Thursday, April 6, 1995
0930-1130   Morning Sesssion (mbone)

10	HTML 2.0 terminology: user agent, character encoding, ...
	conformance, closure.

10      char set issues:
	2.0: model defined, charsets other than ISO-8859-1 reserved
	for future use, i.e. unspecified.

	2.1 revision for more complete charset discussion? (e.g. Unicode)

10      File upload: orthogonal to 2.0, might as well be part of 3.0.
	Independendent specificaion is valuable.

30	Table Deployment.
	Is a 2.0+tables spec effort worth the effort?
	If no 2.0+tables spec, what do we do with browsers that
	implement 2.0+tables, but not 3.0?

30      HTML 3.0 requirements. Suggestions:
	enough tables to satisfy the needs of FORMs applications
	Capture existing navigation idioms
		(i.e. bookmarks, TOC, HOME, Banner)
	parity with major word-processors.
		(e.g. sufficiently rich tables, math)
	extensibility in the direction of stylesheets
		(i.e. ID, class attrs, STYLE element)
	extensibility in the direction of non-western writing systems
		(i.e. LANG attr. Is it enough? Can we defer this?)

30	Liason activity: scripting languages, graphics formats,
	Unicode, HyTime, MID, MIMESGML, etc.