• From: Jonathan.Robie@S...
• To: simonstl@s..., xml-dev@x...
• Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 18:24:15 -0400

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'd suggest soliciting input from the public earlier,
> perhaps by requiring Requirements to go through a
> 'disposition of public comments' period.

The W3C Process Document, which outlines the process used in the W3C, says that Working Drafts must be produced every 3 months to keep the public informed:

<snip source="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Process-19991111/">
At least every three months, a Working Group must publish a (public) Working Draft to keep the community abreast of its progress and to prompt the Working Group to resolve issues in a timely fashion. The first public Working Draft (or release of the document for review beyond the Working Group) must be approved by the Director.

</snip>

If the public is no more than 3 months behind the members, that doesn't seem all that egregrious to me.

The W3C does not, however, require that a Requirements document be published in the same way. The XML Activity does require that a Requirements document exist, but it does not require that this document be published.

FWIW, the Schema requirements have been published since February, 1999 at http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-xml-schema-req. The Query requirements are published as a Working Draft, and have been published since January and updated several times since then - the current draft is at http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/xmlquery/xmlquery-req.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
    • From: sam th <sam@u...>
  • RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
    • From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Unnecessary well-formedness constraint
• Next by Date: Re: how do i...
• Previous by thread: RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
• Next by thread: RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread