Murray Maloney notes:
> Yes, I am eminently familiar with REL/REV values,
> but I note that there seems to be little interest
> among Web browser developers to develop tools that
> utilze REL/REV values. Several months ago I wrote
> a paper which discussed the various ways that REL/REV
> could be used. The SGML community received it well.
> The HTML community did not. The fact that Netscape
> has managed to get the job done without waiting for
> this interminable standards process is no surprise.
Folks, we decided a long time ago on a process where extensions to
HTML 2.0 would be proposed separately in Internet Drafts, and, once
having gotten some WG consensus, the HTML Working Group would proceed
to advance them through standards track. (In a recent message, I
proposed that 'standards track' start with 'Experimental'; I believe
that 'Experimental' is still appropriate for things which don't
already have widespread implementation, as an 'Experimental' document
can be turned into 'Proposed' very simply.)
For novel ideas that are not already widespread or in existing
browsers, it is appropriate to first circulate mail to see if there
are violent objections, but in lieu of those, the next step is to
write an Internet Draft and SEND IT TO THE INTERNET DRAFTS EDITOR.
(Do not merely put it on your web site, or just send it to the mailing
Only documents that are already Internet Drafts can be moved forward
to the next step. Once you've sent out an internet draft, you should
be prepared to modify it in response to comments or critiques. Once
the draft has recieved sufficient review, let the Working Group chair
propose to move it forward to an RFC.
There are a lot of folks who are complaining about the 'process' who
aren't actually following it. (ahem).