[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
David Megginson <david@megginson.com> wrote:
| This is a bit of a creative interpretation.
It's my interpretation, yes.
| In fact, the original XML WG approved XML Namespaces [...]
I don't know what this means.
Were there WD versions that were not approved?
Was WG approval by itself sufficient to move a spec anywhere along the W3C
Process curve?
Did the WG "approve" Namespaces before Eliot quit?
| before the big reorg in Montreal -- the REC was delayed at the W3C
| level, not the WG level.
I don't remember when Montreal was, or what it had to do with anything,
sorry.
What I do remember is a provisional draft in early July being derailed by
a new um, Proposal From The Director. And in my notes, I have this:
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 13:34:19 -0700
From: Jon.Bosak@eng.Sun.COM (Jon Bosak)
Message-Id: <199808032034.NAA27209@boethius.eng.sun.com>
To: w3c-xml-wg@w3.org
Subject: Revised namespaces draft available
A major revision of the namespaces draft is now publicly available at
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-xml-names This draft incorporates a new
attribute-based syntax for namespace declarations as well as new
mechanisms for defaulting and scoping. The XML Working Group actively
solicits feedback from early implementors of the revised draft and has
set up a special mailing list to gather input for an editorial team that
will review early implementation experiences. See the section titled
"Status of this Document" near the beginning of the WD for details.
Jon Bosak Chairman, W3C XML WG
So, somewhere between 3 August, when Jon announced a "major revision" and
2 September when his "Declaring victory and going home" message told us
all that it was really over, the XML WG "approved" Namespaces? I note
that Jon's 3 Aug announcement wasn't even the last WD! Here is a WD dated
16 September (which is after the SIG closed):
http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/WD-xml-names-19980916
The fact remains that while the old WG/SIG lasted, Namespaces never got
beyond WD status.
| you can hardly call Jon a W3C yes-man (at least not if you've ever
| worked with him) -- and those of us who had issues with the W3C not
| only stayed around, but in many cases, acquired more important roles
| in the committees.
It has nothing to do with being a yes man. It has to do with ceasing and
desisting from "lying in the road", as Mike Champion describes it. It is
not being a yes man to simply give up and move on.
As I said, attrition. That's how W3C Process works.
|
