- From: Larry Masinter <masinter@parc.xerox.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 08:46:47 PDT
- To: "James P. Salsman" <bovik@best.com>, <www-html@w3.org>, <www-multimedia@w3.org>, <www-talk@w3.org>
> Here is a draft for your consideration which has been through > IETF and W3C process. It is ready for voting if I understand the > state correctly. James, you've misunderstood the "process" so completely that it's not clear where to begin. Both IETF and W3C have documented processes, the IETF process defined in RFC 2026 and RFC 2028, and the W3C in its process document http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/. # The IETF # recognizes the W3C in this area of authority and Larry Masinter # and Harald Alvestrand have given it their approval. I can't imagine what might have given you this impression. I haven't "given it my approval"; please desist from asserting so. The issue of device input arose when we discussed file upload and we decided to defer it, with the understanding that perhaps the current INPUT TYPE=FILE would be sufficient and that the choice of file or device input might be a user interface decision without requiring additional changes to the standard. It sounds like you have some evidence that it isn't, and thus your proposal to add additional extensions. The questions are: (1) is there a problem of sufficient scope to require a new spec (2) does your proposal addresses the problem (3) is your proposal is technically complete, implementable as specified (4) is it downwardly interoperable and these remain to be judged. Silence is _not_ consent. Regards, Larry -- http://www.parc.xerox.com/masinter
Received on Friday, 17 July 1998 11:46:43 UTC