- From: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:39:49 +0100 (BST)
- To: keshlam@us.ibm.com
- CC: xml-uri@w3.org
> I must have been looking at the wrong copy of the proposal, then. Thanks; that's all I meant to highlight: that the details of the proposal were new despite the preamble indicating it had been discussed on the lists. > Don't confuse serendipitous and specified interoperability. The latter is > guaranteed (assuming correct implementations), the former isn't. Quite true, although my argument was that it is unusual to go from specified interoperability to unspecified behaviour. That is what is proposed for namespace systems (with the theoretical exception of xpath systems) Of course the incompatibility between the current xpath and namespace specs does somewhat weaken my argument. (Which is fortuitous for some, who would have clearly wanted to change the namespace spec even if there had not been that inconsistency) > If you really want to nail something down for interoperability, go back to > the Working Group(s) and propose an official solution. Not me, personally I don't want to do that. I had hoped that that would be the outcome of the discussion, but it appears not, and the outcome will be that the discussion is postponed till another day. I assume that the proposal currently before xml-plenary will pass. Given that the options on the table this time round are just take this propsal or remain stalled indefinitely, I would assume that the propsal will have consensus:-) > But it's legitimate for them to reject the proposal if they're > concerned it may excessively constrain future code. yes, of course. David
Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2000 15:59:23 UTC