Just get along? I understand that you're competitors. Wink, wink, nudge,
nudge.
Jirka posed the same scenario initially: draft a common syntax, get
vendor support, and formalize it later.
I'm just asking whether the last step is necessary if the first two
steps are successful but it is still not advocated by most users.
I'll come right out and admit that I've had to resort to tool-specific
hacks at times. But it seems the sort of thing that would present
deceptively subtle differences between tools, and invite quite a bit of
feature creep. At least with a tool-specific PI, you know which tool
you're hacking for.
Bob Foster wrote:
>Mitch Amiano wrote:
>
>
>>It might mitigate the concern if the PI were a nameless, minor,
>>non-normative appendix attached to some other initiative. But if it is
>>such a quick and ad-hoc thing, just a matter of vendors agreeing with
>>one another on what they already do, why not just do it outside of a
>>standards track? If EXSLT could be brought together through individual
>>effort, surely a few editor vendors can agree on one PI.
>>
>>
>
>Why can't we all just get along? Because we're competitors.
>
>Maybe in some countries a few editor vendors can sit around a table and
>agree on a common feature list, but not the US or any other country with
>similar anti-trust regulations. Monkey-see, monkey-do is perfectly ok,
>but not collusion. That's why we have standards bodies. ;-}
>
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rng-users/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
