I'd be fine with this also. There's no immediate rush for this but it would be excellent if implementors could start taking a look at it.
- James Franklin Tse wrote: > I don't think we are in a hurry to move the draft to an RFC, so, can the > draft be held in the "Draft" stage and issue a call for implementations? The > future of the draft should be based on the implementation reports received. > > Franklin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Martin Duerst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Franklin Tse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "atom-syntax" <atom-syntax@imc.org>; "atom-protocol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 15:29 > Subject: Re: Atom Bidi Draft Update - Informal Last Call > >> At 02:25 07/03/23, James M Snell wrote: >>> It is not year clear if there has been enough independent implementation >>> of the specification to justify publishing it as a proposed standard. >> There is no need for implementations when going to Proposed Standard >> (of course, they never hurt). There is a well-defined need when going >> from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard, but that's way in the future. >> >> Regards, Martin. >> >> >> #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University >> #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >
