On Thu, 15 May 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > I don't have an opinion on the exact issue here, but as a general rule > > I recommend against making decisions based on the political status > > (rather than technical status) of working groups and specs. Otherwise > > we just end [up invoking Conway's law] > > My understanding was that XHR1 is an intermediate step (documenting the > current state, and trying to make it more interoperable), while XHR2 > would contain something that is really good. > > If this is the case, it's totally pointless to let XHR1 have normative > references on something that won't be finished for a long time.
Pragmatically, why does it matter when the references are finished? -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
