- From: Micah Dubinko <MDubinko@cardiff.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:23:57 -0700
- To: "'AndrewWatt2001@aol.com'" <AndrewWatt2001@aol.com>, www-forms@w3.org
What can I say? XForms Basic in some incarnation has always been a part of the XForms spec, and I haven't seen any Last Call requests otherwise. Personal opinion: these proposals are straightforward, not terribly controversial, and a healthy step on the way to REC. I'm particularly pleased that Working Group is able to provide so much public IO. I hope other groups follow our example. Thanks, .micah -----Original Message----- From: AndrewWatt2001@aol.com [mailto:AndrewWatt2001@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 5:26 AM To: MDubinko@cardiff.com; www-forms@w3.org Subject: Re: Your help is needed to better define XForms Basic In a message dated 18/04/02 23:37:01 GMT Daylight Time, MDubinko@cardiff.com writes: To solve these problems and address the Last Call comments, the Working Group has formed an XForms Basic Task Force Micah, Is it a correct conclusion that the "XForms Basic Task Force" is working towards contributing to an integrated XForms 1.0 spec? Or is your email an implicit indication that XForms Basic 1.0 may be split off as a separate spec? Any estimate of how much delay will be introduced into the development of XForms by the attempts to resolve the XForms Basic issues? Andrew Watt
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 15:24:12 UTC