• To: 'Paul Prescod' <paul@p...>, AndrewWatt2000@a...
• Subject: RE: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 14:14:50 -0600
• Cc: ann@w..., xml-dev@l...

Probably one should note that most of the people 
working on the XHTML projects and other WGs are
volunteers. Either they or their companies 
are paying for their time and contributions.  
My guess is that other than review and approval, 
the W3C is mainly fulfilling administrative functions. 
So as long as there is member interest expressed 
by the sign up sheet and fulfillment of assignments, 
there is no scarcity of resources in this case.

... now about that hot tub.  It is where?  Near 
the pub?

len

From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@p...]

AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote:

> That tends to support my viewpoint that it is not axiomatic that further
> development of XHTML is a wise use of limited W3C resources.

What resources in particular are you concerned about? If the editors of 
XHTML 2.0 were not working on XHTML 2.0, they might spend their time at 
the pub or in the hot-tub. That wouldn't advance the Web.

• Prev by Date: Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• Next by Date: Re: What is XHTML 2.0 for?
• Previous by thread: RE: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• Next by thread: Re: What are the arguments *for* XHTML 2.0?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread