Re: Formal Objection to Questions 1 and 2; Abstention on Question 3

Clarification of Objections:
   * Reasons Why HTML 4.01 Strict Should Remain
     the HTML WG's Foundation Document

Since the first deliverable listed in the HTML WG's Charter clearly 

* A language evolved from HTML4 for describing the semantics of 
  documents and applications on the World Wide Web. This will 
  be a complete specification, not a delta specification.

i still firmly believe, and have yet to be convinced otherwise, 
that the HTML WG's foundation document should be HTML 4.01.

using the Strict DTD defined for that language:

taking into account the changes and errata for HTML 4.01:

as well as consideration of the "Notes on Forms" and "Future
Projects" sections of the "Notes" appendix:

as well as the architectural document linked-to from the HTML 
activity's main page:

as well as taking into consideration the following, most of 
which come from the Markup activity's web space::

* XHTML 1.0:

* XHTML Basic:

* Modularization of XHTML:

* XHTML 1.1 (Module-based XHTML):

* HTML Compatibility Guidelines:

* XML Events:

* XHTML-Print:
(Opinion: satisfies a lot of author complaints and is where residual 
presentation markup should be relegated)

* Document Object Model (DOM) Technical Recommendations:

* EARL (Evaluation & Repair):

* HTTP in RDF:

* XForms 1.0 (Second Edition):

* XForms 1.1:

* XML Pointer Language (XPointer) 1.0:

* XML Pointer Language (XPointer) 1.1:

* XPointer Framework:

and any others the chairs deem fit and which match our internal 
dependencies, and, THEN, the HTML WG should treat each 
modification of the Technical Recommendation for HTML 4.01 -- by 
whomever and from whatever source -- as single proposals to add, 
change, modify, and/or deprecate any elements in the HTML 4.01 
Strict DTD in order to produce Canonical HTML.

Whether or not you write well, write bravely.
                                 -- Bill Stout
Gregory J. Rosmaita,
Camera Obscura:

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 02:46:14 UTC