Suggest the IRI working group agenda http://tools.ietf.org/wg/iri/agenda include 20 minutes to discuss working group charter and milestones. Note that in the survey http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/40318/issue-56-objection-poll/results Henri Sivonen wrote: "I strongly object to relying on IRIBIS, because the IETF WG has failed to deliver on its promised schedule." and Edward O Connor wrote: "...the IRIbis spec has failed to provide such interfaces. I see little reason to believe that, were this WG to accept this proposal, the IRIbis spec would be changed at that time to provide these interfaces...." It is true, as Henri says, the IETF WG has "failed to deliver on its promised schedule". It is also true, as Edward says, that IRIbis document does not contain the interfaces suggested in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/0147.html . It is also true that the IRI working group has seen little or no participation from the primary implementers of IRI processors (including Henri, Edward or others) and that without such participation, the likelihood of timely convergence and progress is slim. The objective of the agenda item at the IRI working group would be to arrive at a realistic schedule for completion of chartered work. Larry -- http://larry.masinter.net
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 18:27:18 UTC