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

Dave Carter (dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk)
Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:51:44 +0000 (GMT)


Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:51:44 +0000 (GMT)
From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
cc: Jim Wise <jw250@columbia.edu>, Subir Grewal <subir@crl.com>,
Subject: Re: New tags. (fwd) -Reply (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <32FEEBA3.4C3DB883@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.94.970210094529.13096D-100000@cass26>



On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Dan Connolly wrote:

> Dave Carter wrote:
> > 
> > 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].
> 

Apologies for my misleading comments here.

> 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),

The group of people working on Arena was somewhat larger than this though,
though I guess one person may have written the draft.


> whereas HTML 3.2 is the product of direct collaboration by W3C member
> organizations, 

Who are these organisations?? Do they have formal international
representation?

>a vote of the 150+ member companies,
 
 This is the bit that worries me! Companies have vested interests.

>and the director's  formal recommendation.

 What about the users (workers) then!!!! Users (either authors or readers)
have no voice in this.

Thanks for your clarification

Dave Carter