Re: Constructive Review Comments [was: My vote (fwd) ]

Albert Lunde (Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu)
Thu, 16 May 1996 12:30:58 -0500


Message-Id: <v01530503adc112c02b74@[129.105.110.129]>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 12:30:58 -0500
To: www-html@w3.org
From: Albert Lunde <Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Constructive Review Comments [was: My vote (fwd) ]

At 12:26 PM 5/16/96, Daniel W. Connolly wrote: [...]
>Note that the HTML 3.2 is descriptive, and hence "enhancement
>requests" are out of scope. [...]
>And note that while I'm monitoring this forum to some extent, the
>editor of the specification is not (yet). So you might want to hold
>on to some of your comments until you see a working draft released.

The various sorts of comments have something to do with the fact that it
hasn't been too clear to everybody what _is_ the W3C process for public
input and comment. If HTML 3.2 is intended to be strictly descriptive, then
presumably innovations and enhancements will go somewhere else.  I don't
see the shift from the IETF at the W3C as being as dramatic as it might be,
since a lot of work in both forums has been done by people who work for the
W3C or its member organizations. But that's not all of us.

It would be fair to say that people wouldn't be on the html-wg list
if they didn't care about the future of HTML; so you may expect people here
to have an interest in commenting (perhaps regardless of the existence of
a process for doing so.)

I'm willing to sit on my hands for a while, but I hope some outside input
will enter the process.

---
    Albert Lunde                      Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu