Re: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position
From: "James P. Salsman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Device upload -- of any kind -- has not yet been implemented in Opera. Which is not actually the fault of the HTML WG. > You know that the CTO of Opera software has said they will wait for a > W3C Recommendation (or Working Draft) on device upload. I checked with him at the time that you made this claim. He actually said that they wouldn't implement your proposal unless it was a W3C recommendation. > Opera, even > on Windows, will not interpret MSIE OBJECT or Netscape EMBED tags which > are used for microphone upload on those browsers under Windows. There > is simply no browser on Mac or Linux (other than my experimental > build of pre-gecko Mozilla) which is capable of even microphone upload. Which is not to say that it can't be done. > I am sure we both want to resolve this. Would you please list all > the flaws of which you are aware -- with as little or as much detail > as you have time for -- along with, when available, how they could > be fixed? I promise you I will devote my efforts to your comments > until you are satisfied that they are resolved, but I do need your > help to understand which issues you consider flaws. I will do it on two conditions that you have to promise to: That I never, ever, have to repeat it again. That you stop hassling the HTML WG and spreading mistruths. I will then spend the time to reanalyse your document. Best wishes, Steven Pemberton Chair, W3C HTML WG
Re: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position
Dear Dr. Pemberton, Thank you for your reply: >> I am sure we both want to resolve this. Would you please list all >> the flaws of which you are aware -- with as little or as much detail >> as you have time for -- along with, when available, how they could >> be fixed? I promise you I will devote my efforts to your comments >> until you are satisfied that they are resolved, but I do need your >> help to understand which issues you consider flaws. > > I will do it on two conditions that you have to promise to: > > That I never, ever, have to repeat it again. Agreed; this is preferable for us both. > That you stop hassling the HTML WG and spreading mistruths. While I don't know what you consider hassling, and fear the subjectivity of the term could be used to call my trustworthyness in to question, I promise that, too. You understand, better than most, that reasonable people are capable of honest disagreements on both political and technical matters. I look forward to the final list of issues and the opportunity to address them conconclusivly. Cheers, James
RE: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position
Title: RE: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position what is wrong with all you people? i subscribed to this god-forsaken listserv hoping that i'd learn something. all i've learned is that you're a bunch of negative, argumentative, anti-collaborative bores. shame on you for making the W3C look bad. -Original Message- From: James P. Salsman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 2:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position Dear Dr. Pemberton, Thank you for your reply: >> I am sure we both want to resolve this. Would you please list all >> the flaws of which you are aware -- with as little or as much detail >> as you have time for -- along with, when available, how they could >> be fixed? I promise you I will devote my efforts to your comments >> until you are satisfied that they are resolved, but I do need your >> help to understand which issues you consider flaws. > > I will do it on two conditions that you have to promise to: > > That I never, ever, have to repeat it again. Agreed; this is preferable for us both. > That you stop hassling the HTML WG and spreading mistruths. While I don't know what you consider hassling, and fear the subjectivity of the term could be used to call my trustworthyness in to question, I promise that, too. You understand, better than most, that reasonable people are capable of honest disagreements on both political and technical matters. I look forward to the final list of issues and the opportunity to address them conconclusivly. Cheers, James
Re: 47th IETF: DRAFT AGENDA
At 03:16 PM 03/02/2000 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... >MONDAY, March 27, 2000 >0800-1930 IETF Registration - Foyer 1 >0800-0900 Continental Breakfast - Foyer and Circulation Area >0900-0930 Opening Plenary Session - Hall E >0930-1130 Morning Sessions > APP appareaApplications Area Meeting > INT zeroconf Zero Configuration Networking WG > OPS tmnsnmpTMN-SNMP BOF > RTG bgmp Border Gateway Multicast Protocol WG * >SEC ipsra IP Security Remote Access BOF How many BOFs do these marketroids get?
IETF and HTML (was: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position)
> > Why is this thread being run on the IETF mailing list? The IETF > handed off responsibility for HTML to the W3C long ago. > > When did the IETF ever have responsibility for HTML, exactly? Actually, the handoff hasn't been quite completed. There was a last call on draft-connolly-text-html-01.txt issued 10/28/99. There were several comments recieved during the last call period, and I submitted draft-connolly-text-html-02.txt on 11/16/1999. The last call items are now currently listed as "AD Review" under http://www.ietf.org/IESG/status.html. It would be useful to update the XHTML reference (since this is no longer a 'work in progress'). But completion of this item would allow for the handoff to be completed. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net The IESG has received a request to consider The 'text/html' Media Type as an Informational RFC. This has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. In the same action, the IESG will consider reclassifying the following RFCs as Historic: RFC1866 Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0 RFC1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML RFC1942 HTML Tables RFC1980 A Proposed Extension to HTML: Client-Side Image Maps RFC2070 Internationalization of the Hypertext Markup Language The listed RFCs are obsolete versions of the HTML specification. The current HTML specification which is maintained by the World Wide Web consortium should be used for new implementations. The document proposed as Informational is intended to supersede the current MIME registration of the text/html content-type, which references a now-obsolete version of the HTML specification. The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send any comments to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing lists by November 10, 1999. Files can be obtained via http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-connolly-text-html-01.txt
foglamps BOF and mailing list
It has been recognized for some time that breaking
the end-to-end model through the introduction of elements
like network address translators causes serious problems
in IP networks, and the IETF has had ongoing discussions
of those problems with an eye towards solving them. What
is probably not fully appreciated, however, is the extent
to which NAT and firewall-related problems are interfering
with the deployment of major applications, such as the
migration from circuit-based to packet-based telecommunications
networks. Some of us are beginning to suspect that it may
be time to bite the bullet and make certain network elements
visible to applications by creating explicit external interfaces.
To that end, we've requested a BOF session ("foglamps") for
the upcoming meeting in Adelaide, and have created a foglamps
mailing list on egroups.com (sorry). To subscribe, send
email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or use the web-based
interface at http://www.egroups.com.
Background reading would include:
draft-lear-foglamps-01.txt
draft-shore-h323-firewalls-00.txt
draft-rosenberg-sip-firewalls-00.txt
RFC 2775
draft-iab-ntwlyrws-over-02.txt
I'll send along an agenda as soon as it's finalized.
Melinda
--
Melinda Shore
Nokia IP Telephony
127 West State Street "Software longa,
Ithaca, NY 14850 hardware brevis"
+1 607 273 0724 (office)
+1 607 275 3610 (fax)
+1 607 227 4096 (mobile)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1601bis -03: Still Vague
Hello: Just a quick comment on 1601bis version 3 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-rfc1601bis-03.txt It is not clear on why the IAB does not want to take time for a retreat/ self-assessment of what really works and what not. It seems that the IAB still does not want to empower itself :-(. The role descriptions of section 2 remains vague. Thus, the relation with IANA and the RFC Editor will remain vague. No wonder, if the RFC Editor once has claimed: "The RFC Editor is chartered by the Internet Society (ISOC) and the Federal Network Council (FNC)" (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc-editor/what-is-rfc-editor.html) OK, it's time for an Oolong Tea Party :^, -- - Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim -- VLSM-TJT -- http://rms46.vlsm.org/ - Here we are,poised on the precipice of suicide slope-Calvin 20Feb89
