- From: Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 18:33:31 +0200 (DST)
- To: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no, Chris Lilley <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Cc: lee@sq.com, html-wg@w3.org, marc@ckm.ucsf.edu, pflynn@CURIA.UCC.IE, www-html@w3.org
On Oct 17, 5:14pm, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no wrote: > Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr said: > > Since this is to be an experimental (forward looking) rather than > > existing practice (backward looking) document, the fact that > > something is not in HTML 3.2 is not a problem. > > Right you are - but since RFCs are permanent once published, I really > *hate* references that end up pointing nowhere, like current references > to HTML 3.0 do - and Cougar and the current HTML 3.2 draft are just > that, drafts. I agree. However, while permanent in the sense of continuing to exist, RFCs can always be obsoleted by new RFCs as new understanding is gained. References can be added, subtracted, or modified to point to more permanent forms at that time. And one hopes that one result of deploying an experimental RFC would be new understanding. I accept that references to drafts are undesirable, but sometimes that is all there is until the draft stabilises and is published in more permanant form. This can work, for example the current definition of MIME registration is draft-ietf-822ext-mime-reg-04.txt -- Chris Lilley, W3C [ http://www.w3.org/ ] Graphics and Fonts Guy The World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/people/chris/ INRIA, Projet W3C chris@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 93 65 79 87 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Thursday, 17 October 1996 12:33:43 UTC