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:Arjun Ray (ar@q2.net)
Date:Sep 30, 1999 11:55:28 pm
List:org.w3.www-html

On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

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

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".

That's what I meant by "retire", and why I quoted the word (to suggest only the IETF's possible take on the issue) :)

I think the W3C is perfectly capable of hosting the debate about whether it should be "retired" or not.

Let's not even go there...:)

[...] the discussion on getting the IETF out of the business of hosting the definition.)

A very good move indeed. Thanks again.

Arjun