• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: xml-dev@x...
• Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 19:28:43 -0400

At 09:54 AM 10/17/00 +1000, James Robertson wrote:
>>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.)

In fairness, XSL:FO is a Last Call working draft, albeit one for which Last
Call ended 30 April 2000.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xsl-20000327/

Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books

• References:
  • RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
    • From: Jonathan.Robie@S...
  • RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
    • From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: how do i...
• Next by Date: Re: sunshine and standards development
• Previous by thread: RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
• Next by thread: RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread