W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cdf@w3.org > June 2006


From: Kevin E Kelly <kekelly@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 09:18:27 -0400
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, member-cdf@w3.org, public-cdf@w3.org, public-cdf-request@w3.org, "Hayama, Takanari, VF-JP" <takanari.hayama@vodafone.com>
Message-ID: <OF30F988A6.F837C343-ON85257181.00487219-85257181.0048CA9A@us.ibm.com>
Yes, this is actually the case for several aspects of WICD that it will 
get to CR and then have to wait for other recommendations/specs to catch 
up before moving to REC.


Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> 
Sent by: public-cdf-request@w3.org
06/01/2006 11:14 PM

Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
"Hayama, Takanari, VF-JP" <takanari.hayama@vodafone.com>, 
public-cdf@w3.org, member-cdf@w3.org

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006 19:41:55 +0200, Hayama, Takanari, VF-JP
> <takanari.hayama@vodafone.com> wrote:
> > Although [MQ] is still in Candidate Recommendation, conforming WICD 
> > agents must implement [MQ].
> Doesn't this give problems with pubrules once WICD tries to go to 
> Recommendation status?

Since WICD requires MQ, it would be impossible for two interoperable 
implementations of WICD to exist before two interoperable implementations 
of MQ, and therefore there is no problem, since WICD can't exit CR (and 
thus reach REC) before MQ.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 2 June 2006 13:15:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:21 UTC