Subject: Re: Device upload for all platforms -- the official HTML WG position

From: "Steven Pemberton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:54:52 +0100

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
> Where are they published?  They are in the private W3C members-only
> archives, in the w3c-html-wg archives around October-November 1999,
> with nearly the same discussion in the private w3c-forms list earlier.

That is the process for dealing with a W3C submission. I hope it is obvious
that I am not empowered to republish postings from a private forum to a
public one.

But no worry, because people on this list (www-html) are making the same
sort of comments that people on the original lists made then, so we can just
read them from other people's hand.

> The fact remains that non-wintel web users are excluded from a range
> of very useful services involving device input and upload.

Complete nonsense. There is nothing in HTML 4 that excludes any platform.
Just look at Opera, which is being implemented on BeOs, Epoc, Linux, Mac Os,
OS/2 and Windows. The HTML WG represents a wide range of companies,
platforms and interests.

> If the
> HTML Working Group had incorporated device upload into specifications
> when they were first submitted as an internet-draft in 1997, after
> the implementation on the WebTV Plus, then all this would be a
> non-issue.

If you had listened to the comments to your proposal when you submitted it,
you could have corrected it, and it would be a non-issue. You shouldn't
think that the HTML WG accepts every suggestion from allcomers. We evaluate
technical proposals before accepting them. In your case we pointed out there
are fundamental flaws in your approach, and indicated how you could fix
them.

As members of this list are pointing out, there is nothing in HTML 4 that
prevents an implementor from doing what you want. Talk to the implementors,
would be my advice.

> But as things stand, the W3C is contributing to wintel
> dominance, and disenfranchising Unix and Mac users.

Nonsense. Pure nonsense.

Steven Pemberton
Chair, W3C HTML Working Group

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:32:53 -0800 (PST)

Dear Dr. Pemberton,

Thanks for your message:

> There is nothing in HTML 4 that excludes any platform.
> Just look at Opera, which is being implemented on BeOs, Epoc, Linux, 
> Mac Os, OS/2 and Windows.

Device upload -- of any kind -- has not yet been implemented in Opera.  
You know that the CTO of Opera software has said they will wait for a 
W3C Recommendation (or Working Draft) on device upload.  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.

> If you had listened to the comments to your proposal when you submitted
> it, you could have corrected it, and it would be a non-issue.

Since 1997, there have been eight revisions, incorporating the useful 
suggestions from anyone who cared to review and comment on the draft.  
The basic idea and method remained the same throughout; the significant 
changes mostly concerned the names of devices.

> In your case we pointed out there are fundamental flaws in your 
> approach, and indicated how you could fix them.

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 start by addressing the question of whether ACCEPT alone is
sufficient for device upload, when used with the INPUT TYPE=FILE 
element.  The problem occurs when an image is requested on a system 
with both a camera and a scanner.  Having a DEVICE attribute allows 
for the selection of a default, which is reasonable because some 
conferencing applications might always expect camera input whereas 
OCR applications would usually expect scanner input.  And, as others 
have pointed out, in compressed media the MAXLENGTH limitation is 
not as practical as the MAXTIME limitation, in the case where an 
upload needs to be restricted in size.  Does anyone think that this 
justification is inadequate?

Cheers,
James

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 13:07:09 -0800

Why is this thread being run on the IETF mailing list? The IETF handed off 
responsibility for HTML to the W3C long ago. If the reason is to show 
people that someone has a beef with the way that the W3C is handling HTML, 
that point has been made.

(I can already picture certain IETF folks starting to deluge W3C mailing 
lists when IAB appeals don't go their way...)

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 13:51:40 -0800 (PST)

Paul,

Thanks for your message:

> Why is this thread being run on the IETF mailing list? 

Some messages to the W3C lists described as "public" did not appear
until my request for endorsements of the device upload draft 
appeared here.  The W3C filters out messages from non-subscribers, 
but as the archive for the "public" [email-masked] list shows, 
they also filter messages that they do not wish to have distributed. 

Please be patient.  The IETF attention to this issue has already 
been very helpful.  We all hope for a resolution soon.  

Cheers,
James

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 22:16:36 +0000 (GMT)

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

> responsibility for HTML to the W3C long ago.

When did the IETF ever have responsibility for HTML, exactly?

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 17:49:15 -0500

> When did the IETF ever have responsibility for HTML, exactly?
Well, searching for 'html' or 'hypertext' in rfc-index.tct, I find:

1866 Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0. T. Berners-Lee, D. Connolly.
     November 1995. (Format: TXT=146904 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

1867 Form-based File Upload in HTML. E. Nebel, L. Masinter. November
     1995. (Format: TXT=26183 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)

1942 HTML Tables. D. Raggett. May 1996. (Format: TXT=68705 bytes)
     (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)

1945 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0. T. Berners-Lee, R.
     Fielding & H. Frystyk. May 1996. (Format: TXT=137582 bytes) (Status:
     INFORMATIONAL)

1980 A Proposed Extension to HTML : Client-Side Image Maps. J.
     Seidman. August 1996. (Format: TXT=13448 bytes) (Status:
     INFORMATIONAL)

2070 Internationalization of the Hypertext Markup Language. F.
     Yergeau, G. Nicol, G. Adams, M. Duerst. January 1997. (Format:
     TXT=91887 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

2110 MIME E-mail Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML
     (MHTML). J. Palme, A. Hopmann. March 1997. (Format: TXT=41961 bytes)
     (Obsoleted by RFC2557) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

2557 MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML).
     J. Palme, A. Hopmann, N. Shelness. March 1999. (Format: TXT=61854
     bytes) (Obsoletes RFC2110) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)

2659 Security Extensions For HTML. E. Rescorla, A. Schiffman. August
     1999. (Format: TXT=8134 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)

2731 Encoding Dublin Core Metadata in HTML. J. Kunze. December 1999.
     (Format: TXT=42450 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

Obviously we care enough to issue RFCs about them - some are even Proposed
Standard..

I've left rfc2324 out of the list.. ;)

-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Operating Systems Analyst
				Virginia Tech

---

From: "Steven Pemberton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:40:28 +0100

> Device upload -- of any kind -- has not yet been implemented in Opera.

Which is not actually the fault of the HTML WG.

> 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

Which is not to say that it can't be done.

> 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

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:28:57 -0800 (PST)

Dear Dr. Pemberton,

>   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

---

From: "Larry Masinter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:45:29 -0800

> > Why is this thread being run on the IETF mailing list? The IETF 
> handed off responsibility for HTML to the W3C long ago.
> 

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

Subject: Last Call: The 'text/html' Media Type to Informational
From: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>
To: <IETF-Announce: ;>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 03:01:50 -0800

The IESG has received a request to consider The 'text/html' Media Type
<draft-connolly-text-html-01.txt> 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-masked] or [email-masked] mailing lists by November 10, 1999.

Files can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-connolly-text-html-01.txt