• From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>
• To: xml-dev@x...
• Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:54:03 +1000

At 08:24 17/10/2000, Jonathan.Robie@S... wrote:

>Simon wrote:
>
> > If the W3C isn't the last stop towards standards,
> > I'd leave this up to it. I like the IETF rule of
> > two interoperable implementations, but I'm not sure
> > it's possible in the time frames the W3C seems to want.
>
>In fact, Tim B-L strongly prefers to have two interoperable 
>implementations. It keeps the IETF people from snickering if something 
>goes wrong. The problem has to do with proving interoperability. I think 
>it would be healthy to see this as a formal requirement.

I'm glad to here that _he_ "prefers" two
interoperable implementations.

He decided not to require this in the
case of, say, XSL:FO?

(Name _one_ full implementation of this
standard.)

J

-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution

http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@s...

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>
  • RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
    • From: Jonathan.Robie@S...

• Prev by Date: RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
• Next by Date: RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
• Previous by thread: RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
• Next by thread: RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread