LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for HTML-WG Archives


HTML-WG Archives

HTML-WG Archives


HTML-WG@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HTML-WG Home

HTML-WG Home

HTML-WG  February 1996

HTML-WG February 1996

Subject:

Re: Do we have a rough consensus on html/style?

From:

Paul Prescod <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:57:33 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (68 lines)


At 01:32 PM 2/5/96 PST, Larry Masinter wrote:
>I disagree; if you can find some support for your point of view in RFC
>1602 "The Internet Standards Process" or 1063 "IETF Working Group
>Guidelines and Procedures", please let me know where it is.

Well, I have evidence both for and against my case...I think more for than
against, though.

RFC 1602
     1.1  Internet Standards. ......................................  4


      In general, an Internet Standard is a specification that is stable
      and well-understood, is technically competent, has multiple,
      independent, and interoperable implementations with substantial
      operational experience, enjoys significant public support, and is
      recognizably useful in some or all parts of the Internet.

Neither "technical competence" nor "significant public support" can be
defined in a simple manner.  But I would argue that a standard that is not
embraced by the entire Internet community, but that _is_ embraced by largish
subsets such as librarians, government organizations, SGML proponents and
other niches still has "significant public support."

Here is some more evidence that strenghtens my case (from later in the
document):

RFC 1602
     1.1  Internet Standards. ......................................  4

      In summary, the goals for the Internet standards process are:

      *    technical excellence;

      *    prior implementation and testing;

      *    clear, short, and easily understandable documentation;

      *    openness and fairness; and

      *    timeliness.

(note that there is no mention of mass-market appeal in the summary)

That RFC makes reference to technical competence in several places...much
more often than to "significant public support".

Here's another interesting bit:

RFC 1602
      3.5  Retiring a Standard ...................................... 22

    *    If a concern involves a reasonable difference in technical
         approach, but does not substantiate a claim that the Working
         Group decision will fail to perform adequately, the Working
         Group participant may wish to pursue formation of a separate
         Working Group.  The IESG and IAB encourage alternative points
         of view and the development of technical options, allowing
         the general Internet community to show preference by making
         its own choices, rather than by having legislated decisions.

 Paul Prescod




Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994
August 1994
July 1994

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager