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 27, 1999 6:31:46 pm
List:org.w3.www-html

On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Larry Masinter wrote:

Note that there's a newer version available as ftp://ftp.parc.xerox.com/pub/masinter/draft-connolly-text-html-02.txt

This document summarizes the history of HTML development, and defines the 'text/html' MIME type by pointing to the relevant W3C recommendations;

Does this mean that this document will be a "pointer" only, with the definitive specifications detailed elsewhere?

it is intended to obsolete the previous IETF documents defining HTML, including RFC 1866, RFC 1867, RFC 1980, RFC 1942 and RFC 2070. This document was prepared at the request of the W3C HTML working group.

RFC 1866 and RFC 2070 are Standards Track documents; it's my understanding that action on such documents starts with the IETF, not from the outside (Section 6.1.1 of RFC 2026) While the W3C, as an industry consortium, is free to to consider RFC 1866 "obsoleted" by its own later recommendations, that doesn't make it so for the IETF or the Internet.

Perhaps this I-D should be aimed at an AS or BCP instead?

Actually, I don't understand why anyone needs this document at all.

Arjun