> 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?

Correct - I have been itching to do this but want to wait a few more weeks
to sort out some proposed changes to the linking model, designed to allow
content providers a clean way to describe variants of a given resource
in a way fully backwards compatible with deployed browsers.

> On the MarkUp.html page [1], 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 would certainly interested in getting help with pulling together a more
detailed list of features for the revised core spec.  These need to be
restricted to features for which we can quickly achieve consensus.

-- Dave Raggett <[log in to unmask]> tel: +1 (617) 258 5741 fax: +1 (617) 258 8682
   World Wide Web Consortium, 545 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139
   url =