- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 18 Mar 2003 10:10:07 +0000
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
At the first (and possibly last) f2f meeting of the XML Plenary, in
San Jose some years ago, we had a _lengthy_ discussion about how to
manage dependencies between specs going forward. The one thing there
was virtually complete consensus on was that only allowing specs with
normative dependencies on other specs to REC together was not
sensible.
The informal upshot of that discussion has been the 'no more than one
step ahead' strategy -- you can't have a normative dependency on a
spec. that is more than one step behind you in the REC track. This is
a rule of thumb, I believe -- I can't find it in the Process doc't.
In other words it's guidance to WGs on what 'the Director' is likely
to find acceptable.
The applicability of this guidance is unclear in the current
situation, since there is no REC-track document specifying the IRI
story. I think none-the-less it is quite unreasonable to hold up
XInclude (much less XML 1.1 and XML Namespace 1.1) for a real IRI
document to be formally blessed. I urge the TAG to quickly agree a
form of words suitable for these three specs to include, and the
Director to allow them to go forward using those words.
If we get it wrong, it won't be a catastrophe, and we'll fix it later
that's what we agreed back in San Jose, and I still believe it's the
right strategy.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.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]
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 05:10:11 UTC