Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 22:01:03 +0500 From: email@example.com (Dan Connolly) Message-Id: <9504060201.AA02364@www18.w3.org> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: Multiple recipients of list <email@example.com> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: HTML VWG Agenda In-Reply-To: <199504052249.AA13028@cpcug.org> 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: http://www.w3.org/hypertext/WWW/MarkUp/html-spec/danvers-agenda ================================================================ 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 systems. ================================================================ 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.