Re: Publication Request: XProc on 27 May 2009

Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> writes:
>> I think the checker can't find the date because it's in the past.  
>> The sentence "Based on known implementations, the Working Group does  
>> not plan to request to advance to Proposed Recommendation prior to  
>> 01 February 2009." sounds a bit weird. I wonder if it shouldn't be  
>> rephrased (but have no strong opinion). CC'ing Ian Jacobs in case he  
>> has some input.
>
> Maybe the intention was to say 1 Feb 2010?

No! No! No! :-)

We're just publishing a revised draft for the benefit of the public,
we aren't changing anything about the CR. I suppose I could reword
that so that it says something like:

  Based on known implementations, the Working Group does plans to
  request to advance to Proposed Recommendation as soon as possible.
  An ongoing implementation report will be maintained.

But I'm not sure that's an improvement. And it doesn't have a date
either.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Wandering in a vast forest at night, I
http://nwalsh.com/            | have only a faint light to guide me. A
                              | stranger appears and says to me: "My
                              | friend, you should blow out your candle
                              | in order to find your way more
                              | clearly." This man is a theologian.--
                              | Diderot