• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@c...>
• Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 11:23:33 -0800

Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> 
>  > XSL-FOs?
> foul! FO  spec is unfinished.

Actually, perhaps that means it's right on the mark.  It's
better to have code (such as FOP? ;-) implementing drafts,
and turning up bugs therein, than to wait till any sort of
"Candidate REC" stage to start such work.

Admittedly, tracking a moving target is a hassle, but I've
seen more good come out of such work than otherwise.  Once
organizations start to "freeze" a spec, willingness to fix
it starts to go away, even in the face of substantial bugs
that turn up.  While the drawing board is still out, fixes
can easily be applied.  When it's closed up, that's not so
any longer.

- Dave

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

• References:
  • Re: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article.>
    • From: "Michael Champion" <Mike.Champion@s...>
  • Alternatives to the W3C
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Alternatives to the W3C
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Alternatives to the W3C
    • From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Microsoft's responce to XML.com article
• Next by Date: RE: The DOM: the realist and the implementer
• Previous by thread: Re: Alternatives to the W3C
• Next by thread: Re: Alternatives to the W3C
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread