Robert Sayre wrote: > James M Snell wrote: >> The process for moving forward on this spec will be the same as with >> Atom and APP. > > No, it won't. It's not a WG document. >
Ok, to be absolutely pedantic about it: the process will be as close as possible to that used for Atom/APP with the obvious exception that it is an individual submission and not a WG draft. Pace's to the wiki; discussion on the mailing list; Consensus calls will be posted periodically; I will be tallying the results; anyone can challenge if they feel the need; the entire process will be done out in the open. > Does the draft diverge from existing browser behavior? Do browsers > implement aspects of the document differently? What problems have you > seen that make standardization necessary? > I dunno... you're the one that that writes browser code, you tell me. You certainly seemed to think it was a good fit before. In fact, on January 19 of this year you posted [1]: "I think the current draft reflects what implementations do pretty well" > Without some evidence that the document serves a purpose, I'm afraid I > don't see the point. > You seemed to think it served a purpose last January [2]. The only changes that have been made to the document since your post requesting that it be unexpired and finished is the expiration date and the name of the editor. Perhaps it's the latter change that has you wondering whether this suddenly may not be worth standardizing? [1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg17716.html [2] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg17713.html > - Rob > > P.S. -- the author affiliation information in the draft appears to be > inaccurate. > How so? Given that my volunteering to serve as the editor of this document has nothing to do with my day job it would be inappropriate and dishonest for me to associate my employers name with the work. - James
