• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Jeff Greif <jgreif@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 08:41:30 -0500

Ummm... five years is the ISO cycle for review and that isn't a 
bad idea.  It isn't going to start on XML-Dev as Yet Another We 
Have Laid-Off Programmers In Need of Something to Hack Project. 
The W3C owns XML, has rules for who can work on what, who can 
initiate the work and how that work will be scheduled.  

Isn't the TAG supposed to be looking into issues like this?  
Bray and Connoly were appointed to the by Berners-Lee.  Maybe 
they should be looking into the review of XML 1.0.  Ask them.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Greif [mailto:jgreif@a...]

I think that Len meant that being around 4 years was insufficient
justification in itself for starting work on XML 2.0; rather, a list of
putative mistakes, dubious decisions, omissions and potential enhancements
would drive people to initiate action.  Of course, you probably didn't mean
that being around 4 years was a good reason in itself either.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups
    • From: David Lyon <david@g...>

• Prev by Date: XML Data from ASP cached/erroneous
• Next by Date: Re: Comment on W3C Patent Policy WG Response
• Previous by thread: Re: XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups
• Next by thread: Re: XML 2.0 Specifications and working groups
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread