Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)

Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:34:27 -0600


Message-ID: <32FEEBA3.4C3DB883@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 03:34:27 -0600
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
To: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
CC: Jim Wise <jw250@columbia.edu>, Subir Grewal <subir@crl.com>,
Subject: Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)

Dave Carter wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Jim Wise wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Dave Carter wrote:
> >
> > Nonsense.  HTML 3.2 is a W3C standard ('recommendation').  HTML 3.0 never
> > made it that far, and never will.
> 
> Well I don't know whether W3C actually said 3.0 was a recommendation, but
> it was a draft with their endorsement. It never got submitted to IETF, and
> neither has 3.2. So I don't see the difference.

Just so folks don't get confused...

It's true that HTML 3.2 has not been submitted to the IETF, but
it is completely false that HTML 3.0 was not.
HTML 3.0 was an internet draft, submitted to the IETF in march 95[1].

I suppose it's fair to say that W3C 'endorsed' both of them. But the
W3C investment in HTML 3.0 was part of one staff-person's time (Dave),
whereas HTML 3.2 is the product of direct collaboration by W3C member
organizations, a vote of the 150+ member companies, and the director's
formal recommendation.

As to HTML 3.2 in the IETF: an informational RFC is just a matter
of editorial gruntwork. Anybody could do it, really. On the other
hand, putting HTML 3.2 on the IETF standards track seems unlikely.
The question that keeps me up late at night is the definition
of the text/html media type (I wrote up an idea last year[2]).

Dan

[1] http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/PubHistory.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/WD-doctypes