• From: Jonathan.Robie@S...
• To: jamesr@s..., xml-dev@x...
• Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 08:16:45 -0400

James Robertson wrote:

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

It is on a case-by-case basis, as I understand it. And there are no formal test suites in most groups.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
    • From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
• 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