[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
elharo@metalab.unc.edu (Elliotte Rusty Harold) writes:
>In the past, I've seen two specs that got to recommendation stage
>against substantial dissenting voices: schemas and namespaces. In
>both cases, it turned out that the dissenting voices had very good
>points, there were fundamental flaws in the specs, and those flaws
>are now causing growing problems for everyone. Recommendations
>should require consensus, (and consensus beyond the working group),
>not simple majority vote.
If things haven't changed, OASIS requires that no more than 10% of its
members oppose a given specification.
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/01/17/oasisprocess.html
Choosing who to include in consensus beyond the WG is a tough problem,
I'll admit. Somehow I doubt that the XLink, XML Schema, or Core WGs
particularly want to consider me for purposes of consensus, but the
XForms and XHTML WGs might well prefer me to Andrew Watt.
Right now I get a strong sense that most WGs would prefer not to hear
from anyone with any form of strong criticism at all, however, so it's
certainly worth consideration at least.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
