[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: James Robertson <jamesr@steptwo.com.au>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:54:03 +1000
At 08:24 17/10/2000, Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com wrote:
>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'm glad to here that _he_ "prefers" two
interoperable implementations.
He decided not to require this in the
case of, say, XSL:FO?
(Name _one_ full implementation of this
standard.)
J
-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution
http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@steptwo.com.au
|