[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Blueberry is not "closed" (was: Closing Blueberry)
- From: John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 13:16:25 -0400
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> I am particularly concerned that all my proposals for harm reduction
> in Blueberry are getting naysayed (particularly requiring that XML
> 1.0 legal infosets not carry an unnecessary Blueberry mark).
When I post here, I don't speak for the Core WG, only for myself.
So if I don't like something, I say so; but that only means that
*I* don't like it. I am forwarding many postings to the Blueberry
comments list, so that their content will be considered by the
Core WG. I am trying not to discriminate on the basis of whether
I agree with a proposal, but forwarding whatever *is* either a
proposal or else relevant data.
> However, these are only problems when
> somebody is choosing to generate a Blueberry document but does not
> know whether or not they will actually be generating Blueberry
> characters. I think this is a very small fraction of the potential
My problem with it is that in the world of componentized XML generation,
the top level may not even know what names a component generates.
> I also proposed as a more limited version of this that did not have
> streaming issues; specifically that only documents actually labeled
> with a Blueberry character encoding such as UTF-8 or UTF-16 be
> allowed to carry a Blueberry mark. This was denied on the very weak
> grounds that additional encodings might be defined in the future.
I didn't "deny" it (I can't), and I merely said that we didn't have
an authoritative list. If someone wants to produce such a list, I
will be happy to be sure the idea is considered. As it is, the notion
is an uncashable cheque.
> Already, on this mailing list, we've seen
> repeated misconceptions about what Blueberry accomplishes.
How not? After all, there is no actual draft Blueberry spec yet.
We are at the very *beginning* of the process. There will be
at least one more draft of the requirements; then a Working Draft
for Blueberry itself, then a Candidate Recommendation (at this
point, we look for early implementers), then a Proposed Recommendation,
then the W3C members vote and only then do we get a Recommendation.
It wouldn't astonish me if this took a year all told.
> (This could perhaps be partially averted by naming Blueberry, XML
> 1.0.1. Most publishers are loathe to release books based on .0.x
That was indeed my original name: the connotation of "1.0.1" is
"a very small change" which is indeed the idea.
There is / one art || John Cowan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein