> I will be moving the online draft from its old location as soon as
> possible, and announce the new location.
Documents that are for consideration by "HTML-WG" (the HTML working
group of the IETF for which "[log in to unmask]" is the mailing list)
should be submitted to the Internet Drafts editor for distribution in
Internet Drafts repositories everywhere.
If they are work items of the committee they get named as
draft-ietf-html-*** and if they're other contributions, they get named
These have been the rules forever, and there's no good reason for not
following them here, are there?
> Any comments, suggestions are appreciated. If this whole idea is just
> horrific, everyone scream at once and I'll retract the whole idea.
We've always had a lengthy discussion with no resolution whenever
we've discussed version numbers in the past, and I don't see any
reason why now is different than before. So on general principles, I
think it's awful that you brought this up, but now that you have,
we'll just have to endure the discussion, since there's no way to shut
I think this is because version numbers of protocols are subject to
all kinds of non-technical political issues that the process doesn't
deal well with.
Can you maybe explain to me why we need to do this now?
My preference is to not even consider what the version numbers of
various combinations should be until we have actual consensus and
publication as Experimental RFCs of the elements of those
combinations. That is, forgo this discussion until we actually get
INSERT, TABLES, and I18N out as Experimental RFCs. It's only then that
there's a foundation of stable things for which it makes sense to make