Subject: Re: HTML forms

From: Stephanos Piperoglou <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Apr 2000 02:25:06 +0300 (EEST)

On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, James P. Salsman wrote:

> The proposal would involve ammending the registration of the
> text/html media type, incorporating the W3C standards extended with
> two attributes of the INPUT element, DEVICE and MAXTIME.

Last time I checked, IANA, and not the IETF, controls the definitions
of Media Types. The entry for text/html [1] says, simply "See RFC
1866". And RFC 1866 [2] is a more or less verbatim copy of the HTML
2.0 Specification (which I couldn't find on w3.org, not that I spent
all that long looking). If it's so important to you that this changes,
I'd suggest you first get working at making this point to HTML 4.01 or
even (shock horror) XHTML 1.0. You can work out extensions later on.

[1] http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/text/html
[2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1866.txt?number=1866

Oh, and, BTW, extending the spec with two attributes isn't going to be
all that simple. You need detailed definitions, changes to DTDs, and
more. If you have these details, it would be nice to point us all to a
proposal so we know how "DEVICE" and "MAXTIME" would work.

> I understand that.  There might be substantial benefits from
> reconsidering those opinions.  Within the IETF, public debate is
> assured on almost all controversial matters.  The W3C, however,
> constrains meaningful debate to those willing and able to pay
> US$50,000 per year.

OK, maybe 50k is a bit extreme, but do you *really* have a problem
with the W3C's openness? I've been on this list for oh, about 5 years
and I've seen public debate about issues so ridiculous you wouldn't
believe. If I could point out one flaw in the whole W3C process, it's
that "standardization" comes before implementation. Which is not
really a problem, it's a big HINT you should take: The W3C is *NOT* a
standardization body! It comes up with specifications that it
recommends others should try to follow. Software Engineering 101,
people: Specification comes *BEFORE* implementation. And who is more
capable of creating specs but the people that are going to implement
them?

Cover your sensitive parts, because you're about to be hit by a big
cluestick. The W3C is a place where the people who write the software
for the Web come together, come up with common technologies, SUBMIT
THEM TO PUBLIC REVIEW, adjust them according to comments, then
implement them. It's not, I repeat NOT a standardization body.

> I agree that there was a point in the early development of web
> standards when that constraint was beneficial. 

Where you around back then? Do you remember anybody giving a flipping
f*** about the W3C? I was, and I remember software makers making HTML
user agents they just extended as they went along. On their own. And
we got incompatibilities. And the mess we have today.

> Now, however, with Netscape owned by a company shipping MSIE

Why is it that so many people still suffer from the delusion that
Microsoft and Netscape are the only members of the W3C? Especially
today when at least one of them no longer specifically *plans* to
break W3C specs, and the other one seems to be pressured to be the
same due to the competition, does it even matter?

>, and the stagnation or regression of the core HTML standards

Core HTML Standards? Oh, you must mean ISO-HTML. But I'm going to go
out on a limb here and assume you meant "HTML-related recommendations"
instead of "HTML Standards". In which case please go to the W3C's
Technical Reports and Publications page [4] and point out this
"stagnation or regression" that is plaguing the Web.

[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/

> along with the concerns raised in Norman Solomon's article,

WHAT CONCERNS, and HOW DO THEY RELATE TO THIS DISCUSSION? The press
dumped one dumb buzzword and adopted another. The big bad corporate
bogeyman is coming to getcha. Lay your paranoia aside, Fox. If you
want a rest, stop thinking about what business has done to the Web
(expand it and promote the need for interopability, which is an
absolute requirement for growth in a network world, and businesses
LOVE growth) and think about what the Web has done to business
(lowered barriers of entry, promoted globalization, created new
markets and generally levelled the playing field).

> I believe the time has come to return certain aspects of the control
> of HTML to the IETF.

The IETF never controlled HTML. The only people that ever controlled
HTML are those that write the software that uses it. They just decided
to come together and co-operate. Hence the W3C.

> Even if that view is not shared by the IETF, I the only way I would
> not be certain that a debate on the topic would be healthy for the
> Internet communty would be if the W3C were to take an affirmative
> stand on issues involving microphone upload for language instruction
> and asyncronous audio conferencing.

We've HAD this technical discussion here AGES ago. Create a form, give
it an accept type of audio/whatever and let the user agent bother
about how to get it. If that's too primitive for your needs, go and
create a separate protocol. I'm sick and tired of people trying to
extend HTML to do everything from boiling an egg to making
coffee. It's bad enough that HTML is a user interface language in the
first place (South Park fans, sing along: "Blame Mosaic! Blaim
Mosaic!") instead of developers getting a clue and just created an
extensible embedding mechanism in HTML years ago and worked on
complementary technologies to facilitate the creation of "DHTML
Applications".

Next time, before you post such an inflammatory message to a public
mailing list, please do your homework. What you are proposing is
altering a decision-making mechanism that does NOT work as you think
it does to accomplish something completely meaningless. HTML is the
HyperText Markup Language. Before you start another hopeless campaign
against the capitalist oppressors in your head, at least enlighten the
rest of usas to how Microphones and HyperText are related in any way.

I'll shut up now.

-- 
Stephanos Piperoglou                              <[email-masked]>
Maintainer, HTML with Style                    <http://webreference.com/html/>
  Visit HTML with Style for online HTML and CSS tutorials with step-by-step
   procedures and practical examples to help you author Web pages that are
 full-featured, standards-compliant and backwards-compatible, tools to make a
 Web author's life easier, software reviews, opinions, industry news and more

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 19:28:51 -0500

> of Media Types. 

yes, but IANA follows IETF rules in assignment and updating of media types.

> The entry for text/html [1] says, simply "See RFC

This is already in the process of being changed - see
draft-connolly-text-html-02.txt
for the latest version.  IIRC this is ready for IESG ballot
(though it might already be in the RFC Editor queue)

I presume that IANA will update the text/html registration once this
document is published as an RFC.

Keith

p.s. As for updating this along the lines that Mr. Salsman suggests - 
the problem as I see it is that Mr. Salsman has not been able to obtain
much community support, much less consensus, for his idea.     I am
not so sure that it's a fundamentally bad idea, but perhaps it needs
tweaking in order to gain widespread support.  Or perhaps it's just not 
high enough on anyone's priority list except Mr. Salsman's.  Regardless,
it needs a great deal more support than Mr. Salsman's to be approved, and
neither does such support seem to be forthcoming from the IETF list members.

Note that since IETF does acknowledge W3C as the "owner" of the HTML
specifications, IESG is extremely unlikely to approve a version of a 
text/html media type registration without prior W3C approval of that 
registration.

---

From: "James P. Salsman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 16:30:23 -0800 (PST)

Stephanos,

Thanks for your message:

>... You need detailed definitions, changes to DTDs, and more.
> If you have these details, it would be nice to point us all to a

Sorry about not pointing to this document:

  http://www.bovik.org/device-upload.html

in every message.  It started out as an Internet Draft in late 1997.

> WHAT CONCERNS [from Norman Solomon's article in FAIR's _Extra!_],
> and HOW DO THEY RELATE TO THIS DISCUSSION?

The same concerns I had after participating in the W3C's extended 
forms working group for most of last year -- that they care far 
more about e-commerce that they should (to the point of wanting to 
completely overhaul perfectly serviceable HTML forms as the are) 
and at the same time are seriously neglecting educational needs.

>... We've HAD this technical discussion here AGES ago. Create a form,
> give it an accept type of audio/whatever and let the user agent 
> bother about how to get it. If that's too primitive for your needs,
> go and create a separate protocol....

Not only does the chair of the HTML Working Group and everyone 
else in the W3C who has spoken out on the topic, including 
Tim Berners-Lee, agree with these sentiments, SO DO I!!!  In 
a perfect world, all of the browser authors would implement
device upload using the ACCEPT attribute within INPUT TYPE=FILE.

However, in the world we live in, NONE of them have done that.  
The only reason why that I've been able to find, after years 
of communication with them and studying their code, when it has 
been available, is that many major releases of the big-two 
browsers have interpreted the ACCEPT attribute as a filename 
pattern.  The underlying reason is that at for a long while, 
the official HTML 3.2 specification suggested ACCEPT was 
supposed to be a filename pattern, so that was the correct 
behavior as interpreted by the browser developers, and it has 
probably become part of some legacy application somewhere.

So people have a choice, between idealism, where everybody 
faithfully implements the specs exactly as they are handed 
down (even if they don't remain consistent between revisions 
of the same version number), and pragmatism, where the 
introduction of an extra attribute (such as DEVICE) would 
allow the browser authors to rest easy that they aren't 
breaking anyone's legacy implementations of a ACCEPT, while 
at the same time providing a way to specify a default device 
selection.  Setting aside the fact that the HTML Working 
Group claims it would be bad user interface design to allow 
for the selection of a default (a position I find untenable),
which is the practical choice?

Which is better for spoken language instruction?

Which makes it more likely that mass-market portable wireless 
boxes will implement high-quality asynchronous voice messaging
even under very-low-bandwidth conditions?

Cheers,
James

P.S. sorry about the echoed message sans my reply

---

From: John Stracke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 18:25:31 -0800

Keith Moore wrote:

> specifications

...much as the ITU acknowledges the IETF as the "owner" of the
IP specifications.  Let's not set a precedent we can't live with.  :-)

--
/=================================================================\
|John Stracke    | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.   |
|Chief Scientist |================================================|
|eCal Corp.      |When rats leave a sinking ship, where exactly do|
[email-masked]|they think they're going?                       |
\=================================================================/

---

From: Salvador Vidal <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 18:48:45 +0200

Hi folks and all,

I think that as much conflicts that can be solved without the traditional
way: regulation + represion = burocracy + injustice, will be better for users.

Of course that always will remain Gansters that will require traditional
represion ways, i.e.:
At 02:25 02/04/00 +0300, Stephanos Piperoglou wrote:
>cluestick.

But on privacy questions we can try first to give technical solutions, i.e.
ways  to follow stamped data to oversee companies behavior and then inform
users about it automaticaly when they get in contact with these
companies,..., well I don´t know which utilities will work, but I think is
worthy to try some before being driven to legal solutions that only will be
able to reapir damages not to avoid them.

Does anyone know about any woorking group about this, that cost least than
50.000 $?

Thank you,

Salva

---

From: Martin Montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 10:00:01 -0300

>able to reapir damages not to avoid them.

I think that we are in front of the progress ´s victory over the politics
's ideas.
See the advance of technology like a flood and the politics like a glass.
The humanity is really in front of the product of the knowledge of some
persons and is trying to save your houses of the flood with a small glass.
That bring an inevitable break of the actually concepts about the limits
and jurisdictions of the law.
Some countries(goverments) are afraid to lose the domain on commerce and 
in a future they will take acctions(any action!!) to regulate all in this
actually paradise of finances.

Martin Montenegro