At 09:12 AM 9/25/2002 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >We hope and I believe that this process makes the document a robust and >useful specification I guess there's no formal category called "specification"? The decision to go for "recommendation" status was already deliberated in the PFWG and when "voted on", carried. Clearly the current document may "specify" things such as "export semantics" which aren't all that easy to elucidate (I know what it means but can't convincingly explain how to either do it or check that it's been done) but which need to be called for. The formal/testable "recommendation" will be in the works forever and will likely never be finaliz(s)ed - so be it. What we CAN do is to provide guidance even though they are unlikely to become "guidelines/checkpoints" and maybe if we just changed the designations thereto it would be helpful to the X community? -- Love. It's Bad Luck to be Superstitious!
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 10:02:41 UTC