Re: The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on

OK, but it rather depends what "accepts... as a work item" means.
>From WG public list / meeting minutes it looks like there is some
reservation in WG about committing to working on the specs: So
might it be accepted as a work item by WG but with no actual
committment to do further work in the WG towards standardising
MicroXML? The minutes seem to suggest that progress towards
standardisation by this CG would be necessary to trigger the WG
wanting to take the transfer across of the spec(s): That 'if the CG
wishes to standardise MicroXML', then the standardisation should
be taken forward by the WG (though with no WG committment
to actually doing this standardisation). There's a whole lot of 'if's in
that.
----
Stephen D Green



On 19 November 2012 15:43, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Stephen D Green scripsit:
>
> > I reckon giving consent to the WG to take the spec further should
> > be *in parallel* to this CG pushing it as far towards standardisation
> > as possible. After all, the WG might not actually want to take it further
> > - just have agreement from us that they MAY do so. That doesn't
> > mean the CG stops trying to take it further themselves (too?), does it?
>
> No.  But if the WG actually accepts MicroXML as a work item, and we
> agree to hand it off, then we'd have to stop working on it.  It serves
> no one for there to be two evolving MicroXML specs, the CG flavor and
> the WG flavor.
>
> --
> John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan      cowan@ccil.org
> Be yourself.  Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where
> no such knowledge exists.  Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in
> the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup,
> James Clark is as perennial as the grass.  --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath
>