- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 26 Oct 1997 13:45:37 -0600
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
- CC: www-html-editor@w3.org
Ian B. Jacobs wrote: > > Dan Connolly wrote: > > > > (not speaking as WG chair here) > > > > Please consider moving: > > > > 3.2.6 SGML features with limited support > > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/9710/WD-html40-971024/intro/sgmltut.html#h-3.2.6 > > > > to Appendix B > > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/9710/WD-html40-971024/appendix/notes.html > > I added the following paragraph to > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/9710/WD-html40-971024/convent.html: > > User agents must not render SGML processing instructions (e.g., FOR PETE'S SAKE! BE CAREFUL NOT TO MAKE DESIGN CHANGES! The current spec says SHOULD: "Processing Instructions <?your user agent should hide these> " Changing "should" to "must" is a change in the language. DO NOT DO THAT WITHOUT MY EXPLICIT CONFIRMATION. Seeing this makes me lose almost all confidence that the spec reflects the intent of the WG. It fills me with the need to review the WHOLE THING. I've felt this way for a while, but I haven't found time to do the review. As you can see, I started over the weekend, but I'm not nearly finished. On the good side, I was pleased with the comprehensiveness of the spec, and the more I looked at it, the more I liked it. But I don't seem to be able to impress upon you the need to NOT change the technical details when you change the editorial content. Sorry if this sounds drastic... you sent me your reasons for "stage freight" before the release; these are mine. -- Dan Connolly, W3C HTML Working Group Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 26 October 1997 14:44:14 UTC