- From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 17:26:21 -0400
- To: murray@spyglass.com (Murray Altheim)
- Cc: dsr@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
In message <v02110103adc12c9ecb4c@[140.186.34.50]>, Murray Altheim writes: >Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@beach.w3.org> writes: >>Note that the HTML 3.2 is descriptive, and hence "enhancement >>requests" are out of scope. There is room for discussion about how to >>describe the current state of affairs (e.g. ways to describe things >>like FONT, CENTER, CLASS, ...) but there is no room (in the HTML 3.2 >>review process) for enhancement requests (e.g. special entities for >>ligatures). > >HTML 3.2 is only descriptive of the products produced by the members of >W3C, and reflects pressure from only one segment of the Web community; I'll say it again: the current draft represents the consensus of the HTML ERB. Now it's up for public review. Heck... I'll update the Wilbur page. Have a look. > the >"current state of affairs" is much broader than that. While I agree with >the spirit of trying to keep feature requests in 3.2 down to a dull roar, >stating that there is "no room" for features beyond W3C's "descriptive" DTD >only closes the door to valid features that are simply outside the purview >of W3C. I already acknowledged that there's room for discussion about the best way to describe the current situation. Input that's not in the form of wording for the spec really isn't helpful. >>And note that while I'm monitoring this forum to some extent, the >>editor of the specification is not (yet). So you might want to hold >>on to some of your comments until you see a working draft released. > >You have released a working draft of HTML 3.2 -- I seem to recall a press >release to that effect dated May 7th. We've concluded most of the technical discussions, and distributed some pre-release materials. There is no working draftyet. Dan
Received on Thursday, 16 May 1996 17:26:26 UTC