- From: Archie Warnock <warnock@awcubed.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:45:49 -0500
- To: "Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress" <rden@loc.gov>
- CC: www-zig@w3.org
Ray Denenberg, Library of Congress wrote: > Archie, I don't want anyone to change their implementation behavior > based on the existing or a revised agreement. So this is useful > feedback, thanks. I would like to incorporate existing implementation > practice into the revised procedure. > > I think that the 110 record syntax was first registered with the idea > that the XML schema was known by private agreement. (Subseqently we > registered 112 to use in the case when you want to also specify the > schema.) It sounds like what you are doing is consisitent with what we > had in mind. I'll write this into the revised agreement. > > Any other feedback on this is also welcome. Well, it's more a matter of being ready for any requests that come in. It's not exactly at the top of my development priority list, but it's something that Isite ought to handle in accord with the agreement. -- Archie -- Archie Warnock warnock@awcubed.com -- A/WWW Enterprises www.awcubed.com -- As a matter of fact, I _do_ speak for my employer.
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 07:30:09 UTC