- From: Dave Carter <dxc@ast.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 09:51:44 +0000 (GMT)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: Jim Wise <jw250@columbia.edu>, Subir Grewal <subir@crl.com>, HTML Discussion List <www-html@w3.org>
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997, Dan Connolly wrote: > Dave Carter wrote: > > > > Well I don't know whether W3C actually said 3.0 was a recommendation, but > > it was a draft with their endorsement. It never got submitted to IETF, and > > neither has 3.2. So I don't see the difference. > > Just so folks don't get confused... > > It's true that HTML 3.2 has not been submitted to the IETF, but > it is completely false that HTML 3.0 was not. > HTML 3.0 was an internet draft, submitted to the IETF in march 95[1]. > Apologies for my misleading comments here. > I suppose it's fair to say that W3C 'endorsed' both of them. But the > W3C investment in HTML 3.0 was part of one staff-person's time (Dave), The group of people working on Arena was somewhat larger than this though, though I guess one person may have written the draft. > whereas HTML 3.2 is the product of direct collaboration by W3C member > organizations, Who are these organisations?? Do they have formal international representation? >a vote of the 150+ member companies, This is the bit that worries me! Companies have vested interests. >and the director's formal recommendation. What about the users (workers) then!!!! Users (either authors or readers) have no voice in this. Thanks for your clarification Dave Carter
Received on Monday, 10 February 1997 04:51:38 UTC