Daniel W. Connolly writes:
> Maurizio Codogno writes:
> >I am still wondering why nobody issued a new draft with such easy things
> >are "proposed" and quickly approved. It could led people to try and use
> >these things...
> The IETF is an all volunteer organization.
> In other words, there is no draft because noone has written it.
> I invite you to write a draft specifying any features you see
> that need standardization.
I'd really like to see an HTML 2.1 sometime in the near future which
would include HTML 2.0 + tables + i18n + file-upload + other stable bits
of the HTML 3.0 proposal. However, a draft for these "other stable bits"
has yet to be written, correct?
On the MarkUp.html page , there's an area called "Core Features"
which seems to be what I'm thinking of: is anybody working on this?
If I went through the HTML 3.0 proposal and picked out some of the more
stable pieces (while paying attention to existing practice) and made it
into a new draft, would I be stepping on anyone's toes? And, assuming I
do a half-decent job, would this draft actually be useful in bringing
about a speedy HTML 2.1, or would I be wasting my time?
I don't think there was a consensus from last month's thread on how to
proceed from HTML 2.0 (extension registries vs. feature negotiation vs.
HTML 2.1 vs. HTML 3.1), but after some reflection I'm extremely convinced
that HTML 2.1 or somesuch is the way to go, and that it should be done
ObNag: How's the EMBED draft coming?
Gerald Oskoboiny <[log in to unmask]> http://ugweb.cs.ualberta.ca/~gerald/