Paul Hoffman schrieb:
At 3:01 AM -0400 10/2/06, Robert Sayre wrote:
I think we should move the format to Draft Standard by clearing up any
errata and adding two attributes: 'dir' and 'unicode-bidi', as defined
in XHTML.
We can't both add features and move to Draft Standard at the same time.
If we add features, we would recycle at Proposed Standard. Errata that
are truly that and not technical changes can be made when moving to
Draft Standard.
> ...
Independantly of that, what do we do with all the normative references
to proposed standards...:
Normative References:
REC-html401-19991224: [REC] ok
RFC4288: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0013)
RFC2119: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0014)
RFC2822: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of DRAFT
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC2854: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of DRAFT
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC3023: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of DRAFT
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC3066: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] obsoleted by RFC4646 RFC4647
RFC3339: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of DRAFT
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC3548: [INFORMATIONAL] -- intended standards level of DRAFT
incompatible with this document's standard level!
RFC3986: [STANDARD] (-> STD0066)
RFC3987: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of DRAFT
incompatible with this document's standard level!
REC-xml-20040204: [REC] ok
REC-xml-c14n-20010315: [REC] ok
REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718: [REC] ok
REC-xml-infoset-20040204: [REC] ok
REC-xml-names-19990114: [REC] ok
REC-xmlbase-20010627: [REC] ok
REC-xmldsig-core-20020212: [REC] ok
REC-xmlenc-core-20021210: [REC] ok
REC-xhtml-modularization-20010410: document unknown
Informative References:
ISO.8601.1988: not checked
RELAX-NG: not checked
RFC2434: [BEST CURRENT PRACTICE] (-> BCP0026)
NOTE-datetime-19980827: document unknown
REC-xmlschema-2-20041028: [REC] ok
?
Best regards, Julian
