W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > July 2000

Re: moving toward a decision

From: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:39:49 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <m139u5N-000OdCC@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
To: keshlam@us.ibm.com
CC: xml-uri@w3.org

> I must have been looking at the wrong copy of the proposal, then. Thanks;

that's all I meant to highlight: that the details of the proposal were
new despite the preamble indicating it had been discussed on the
lists.


> Don't confuse serendipitous and specified interoperability. The latter is
> guaranteed (assuming correct implementations), the former isn't.

Quite true, although my argument was that it is unusual to go from
specified interoperability to unspecified behaviour. That is what is
proposed for namespace systems (with the theoretical exception of
xpath systems) Of course the incompatibility between the current
xpath and namespace specs does somewhat weaken my argument.
(Which is fortuitous for some, who would have clearly wanted to change
the namespace spec even if there had not been that inconsistency)

> If you really want to nail something down for interoperability, go back to
> the Working Group(s) and propose an official solution.

Not me, personally I don't want to do that. I had hoped that that
would be the outcome of the discussion, but it appears not, and the
outcome will be that the discussion is postponed till another day.
I assume that the proposal currently before xml-plenary will pass.
Given that the options on the table this time round are just take this
propsal or remain stalled indefinitely, I would assume  that the
propsal will have consensus:-)

>  But it's legitimate for them to reject the proposal if they're
> concerned it may excessively constrain future code.

yes, of course.

David
Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2000 15:59:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:44 UTC