21 messages in org.w3.www-htmlRe: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-connolly-tex...
FromSent OnAttachments
Larry MasinterSep 23, 1999 12:15 pm 
Jukk...@hut.fiSep 24, 1999 2:44 am 
Walter Ian KayeSep 24, 1999 10:39 am 
Arjun RaySep 27, 1999 6:31 pm 
Harald Tveit AlvestrandSep 28, 1999 10:51 am 
Arjun RaySep 28, 1999 5:01 pm 
Harald Tveit AlvestrandSep 30, 1999 11:41 am 
Arjun RaySep 30, 1999 11:55 pm 
Larry MasinterOct 4, 1999 1:06 pm 
Arjun RayOct 4, 1999 9:56 pm 
Larry MasinterOct 5, 1999 6:55 am 
Arjun RayOct 6, 1999 12:04 am 
Arjun RayOct 6, 1999 3:29 am 
Rick JelliffeOct 6, 1999 6:37 am 
Arjun RayOct 6, 1999 6:39 am 
Russell Steven Shawn O'ConnorOct 6, 1999 6:42 am 
Arjun RayOct 6, 1999 10:17 am 
Arjun RayOct 7, 1999 10:00 pm 
Larry MasinterOct 8, 1999 2:55 am 
Jukk...@hut.fiOct 8, 1999 3:27 am 
Arjun RayOct 8, 1999 3:49 pm 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-connolly-text-html-00.txtActions...
From:Harald Tveit Alvestrand (Har@Alvestrand.no)
Date:Sep 30, 1999 11:41:10 am
List:org.w3.www-html

At 20:02 28.09.99 -0400, Arjun Ray wrote:

Thank you for this very important clarification. I had jumped to the conclusion that obsoleting Standards Track documents implied the substitution of a new document aimed at standardization. I now see this as the first move to "retire" HTML; it's a move I would agree with.

In this case, it should be read as the IETF declaring HTML "someone else's business". I think the W3C is perfectly capable of hosting the debate about whether it should be "retired" or not.

(My personal opinion is that attempting to "retire" it any time soon would serve no purpose except to lose credibility for the W3C. But that's irrelevant to the discussion on getting the IETF out of the business of hosting the definition.)

Harald A

-- Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway Hara@maxware.no