On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 15:28, Kendall Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 01:21:34PM -0800, Rob Shearer wrote: > > > Yes, the time and resources we'd devote to protocol are of concern to > > me. > > Hmm, so, Rob, yr against any sort of protocol standardization work at > all in the first phase (that is, before we have a DAWG-QL document)? I don't think that's what Rob was saying. I'm sorry I sent my rant on "let's get to CR in 6 months!" It seems to have sparked discussion of the whole charter and scope of the WG and life the universe and everything. Discussion of the charter itself is supposed to be done. We will inevitably need to do a little bit of charter discussion to get a shared understanding of it, but I'd prefer that any discussion of charter changes and such started off-list. Talk to me and EricP, or talk to one or two other WG members to see if there's support for a change before you bring it to the whole list. Let's please get back to telling each other stories, use cases, and the like. I think that's the most constructive way to find out what Rob and Kendall and the rest of us can agree on. [...] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ see you at the WWW2004 in NY 17-22 May?Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 16:45:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:24 UTC