Re: Progress on XML 1.0 5e disposition of comments

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Grosso, Paul writes:

> I see that all the points are editorial or process except
> Issue boyer-1 which is listed as (substantive, pending):
>  Changing the Char production to Unicode 5 is a big change 
>  for content -- shouldn't we just abandon Unicode altogether?
>
> Should this issue be "(process, pending)"?  Or are we just
> going to reject it?

I missed this when I summarised the state of play a while back, sorry.

I think we need to agree to reject it, it's not just a process issue.

His idea isn't crazy, but I think in practice it would turn out to be
very little different from what we have now, and it would scare people
half to death. . .

ht
- -- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
                         Half-time member of W3C Team
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFI5OyWkjnJixAXWBoRArSHAJ4n0z9ANjADn97jsextOYsnoRgU4QCfTh6h
dBc4pmlNKMYT0m7QXZ26pv0=
=IsLh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 2 October 2008 15:46:03 UTC