- From: <keshlam@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 13:25:43 -0400
- To: David Hunter <david.hunter@mobileQ.COM>
- cc: XML-uri@w3.org
>There is a fundamental philosophical shift going on, where the W3C >published a recommendation, with a specific purpose, and now may be deciding >to retroactively change that purpose, despite the 18 months of use that the >Rec has gone through. This is one reason I lean toward some version of Forbid/Deprecate. That's the closest match to the original authors' intent. The problem is that there appear to be at least two published specs which _disagree_ on how to interpret the point under debate. At least one of them is definitely going to take a hit. The question is only which, and how badly. A large part of this debate has been about which solutions cause the least breakage. There doesn't seem to be an answer that causes _no_ breakage. It would be nice if this hadn't arisen. It's a good reminder for us all to be more careful about reviewing the interactions between specs, early and often. But if we continue to run development cycles in web-years, this sort of thing is likely to continue to arise. "When you want something in the worst way.... you may get it in the worst way." ______________________________________ Joe Kesselman / IBM Research
Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 13:25:55 UTC