At 6:23 PM +0000 10/2/06, Robert Sayre wrote:
That's unfortunate. A documented process is a requirement for open standards
development, in the opinion of many
If it is a true requirement, then I guess the IETF is an abysmal
failure. Oh, well.
OTOH, some folks in the IETF are trying to meet the desire by doing a
better job of codifying what is and is not the process. Others, I
must admit, are not trying at all.
There is one mistake in the Relax NG (atom common attributes on author or
something) and at least one section that is somewhat unclear around
the external
div in XHTML.
I believe both of those would be considered clarifications, and thus
not prevent the movement to Draft Standard.
The i18n attributes seem needed to display text without a guess based on
xml:lang. Maybe we don't even need unicode-bidi. I don't think it would be
smart to take other features.
"needed to display" is often an issue the IETF ignores, so we might
avoid it if the desire is to get to Draft Standard.
But Julian's second message needs to be dealt with first, and I
assure you that many of those documents are not going to be going to
Draft Standard any time soon (if ever) because there is no energy to
test every required feature in the documents.
