Re: The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on

I am wondering whether we should publish our spec as a Final CG Spec first.

James

On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:32 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> The W3C XML Core WG <http://www.w3.org/XML/Core> discussed MicroXML
> briefly last week at a face-to-face meeting, and at more length today
> on the phone.  I belong to the WG, but didn't attend the F2F.
>
> Since there hasn't been a posting here for more than a month, and no
> changes to the draft for six weeks, the Core WG would like to know if
> anyone on this Community Group objects to transferring further work on
> the MicroXML specification itself to the Core WG in hopes that it will
> eventually lead to a W3C Recommendation.  Other possible work items such
> as MicroAF, MicroExamplotron, and Automatic Namespaces would remain in
> the hands of this group.
>
> This does not constitute any sort of commitment by the Core WG to actually
> work on MicroXML, of course.  However, its charter will be renewed next
> month, so this is a good moment to add MicroXML as an optional work item.
>
> If there are any objections, please post them here or email me privately,
> or in the alternative communicate with Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>.
> Giving reasons would be a Good Thing.
>
> --
> John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan  cowan@ccil.org
> 'Tis the Linux rebellion / Let coders take their place,
> The Linux-nationale / Shall Microsoft outpace,
> We can write better programs / Our CPUs won't stall,
> So raise the penguin banner of / The Linux-nationale.  --Greg Baker
>
>