• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• To: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 15:20:32 -0400

Ann Navarro wrote:


> If the group is truly in the requirements gathering phase, it would 
> follow that all requirements be gathered and reviewed, without any 
> gate-keeping function that is making subjective judgements on whether 
> something is or is not appropriate, except for exceptionally extreme cases.


My belief is (and again, I am *not* speaking for the Core WG officially)
that we are not in a requirements gathering phase, but rather in a
requirements *approval* phase.  We have created our own requirements,
and want the W3C and the community to bless them.

What's going on here is not "What should go into the next version of
XML?" but rather "We have some ideas that (we think) require a new
version, unfortunately: here they are."

-- 
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• References:
  • Closing Blueberry
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Closing Blueberry
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Next by Date: Re: NEL where?
• Previous by thread: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Next by thread: Re: Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread