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: HTML Development Version Numbers

From:

Larry Masinter <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 4 Feb 1996 17:50:04 PST

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (48 lines)


> 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
draft-yourname-html-***. 

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
it off.

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
up labels.








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