- From: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 22:22:13 +0000
- To: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
- CC: "public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org" <public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org>
> If we can agree, but we dont like it then the next step is to > request to be members of the XML WG and take the issue up with them. I think they've already spoken to that issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012May/0027.html So I'm not optimistic either, but it would be ideal to lay out a good proposed spec and they can decide on the merits anyway. ------------------- Let's start here. I assert it is absolutely NOT ideal to put effort into something that has no chance of success. But I suppose it depends on what your goals are. Adoption of the concept in some form or putting something into the xml: namespace or nothing. The XML WG had Closed this request. Other previous indications are that they will not accept similar requests. I personally am not willing to invest time fighting this windmill. If you are happy to work on a proposal that does *not* require the XML WG to add more names to the reserved xml: namespace then I am willing to spend some effort to help that along. If you are not, then I am not going to find the time and willpower in me to do so. Others might. I suggest a good proposed spec should be outside the xml namespace. If we can get good adoption of *that* then it might conceivably someday be incorporated into xml: ... maybe. Although even then unlikely. If that is unacceptable, there is not much more help I can give. You are welcome to work on it and gain others help though. I dont want to pretend I am actually in charge of anything except my own time. -David
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 22:22:36 UTC