On 31.05.2016 22:11, Dave Cridland wrote: > I think this is a great idea, despite it having the potential to > increase effort further.
Thanks Dave. :) > 1) I don't like "Proposed", mostly because we have a XEP state of that name. What do you suggest instead? IANA also has these two states with the exact same name. Think of it as "Proposed Registry Entry". > 2) I'd like to consider going slightly further, and accept submissions > from non-XSF sources. This would turn the registry from something that, > really, nobody much uses into a real information source. This, too, > needs a label. Is or was there ever there a demand for this? I don't see a requirement for this. Besides, it adds more workload to the already understaffed (in terms of active members) Editor/Registrar team. But I'm happy to hear what others think. - Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Standards mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
