- From: Yassir Elley <yassir.elley@sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 16:59:32 -0400
- To: reagle@w3.org
- CC: Blair Dillaway <blaird@microsoft.com>, Frederick Hirsch <hirsch@fjhirsch.com>, www-xkms@w3.org
Since I am not that familiar with W3C process, I'm not sure how much time it takes to proceed from Candidate Recommendation (CR) status to Recommendation status. If it is anything like the IETF, it likely takes several years. For that reason, I would suggest we stick with statements about CR. How about: a) The specification MUST provide a binding to SOAP 1.2, provided that specification has reached CR status prior to the XKMS WG completing its work. The specification SHOULD provide a binding to SOAP 1.1 (for interoperability purposes). b) XKMS services MUST implement SOAP 1.2 once that specification has achieved CR status. Joseph Reagle wrote: > On Thursday 09 May 2002 05:35, Blair Dillaway wrote: > > My understanding is that a W3C spec process is that you can't include > > dependencies on anything less advanced. > > That's the general case for RECs, but I don't think it's absolutely > necessary for CR. But then again, when in CR if a dependency substantively > changed that affected our own syntax or processing behaviour we should use > a new namesapce -- which is easily enough done! > > For what it's worth, yesterday Fallside announced that (I think) the WG's > internal issue list is pretty much closed and they hope to issue a Last > Call ASAP. > > -- > *Note: I will be attending the W3C AC and WWW2002 meetings from > May 5-10, and taking holiday from 13-16. I will not be as responsive > during the former period, and off-line during the latter. I will fully > respond to any email as soon as possible after my return.
Received on Thursday, 9 May 2002 17:05:58 UTC