2008/7/1 Thomas Zander <>:
> On Tuesday 1. July 2008 18:54:54 Dave Pawson wrote:
>> Simply because it isn't an Oasis standard at this time of writing.
>> If, when the TC is constituted, 1.2 is the current Oasis standard,
>> then quote that.
>> Until then, 1.2 and any other 'non existant' Oasis standards are
>> properly undefined
>> and hence created an undefined workload for the TC.
>
> I don't buy this argument, explicitly forbidding the TC from working on a
> not-yet-published standard seems a bit extreme.
> Your point that it creates an undefined workload is incorrect since the TC
> decides what it will work on, limiting what they are allowed to work on does
> nothing but limit the flexibility. In various cases its a good thing, but
> using it to relieve pressure sounds like going the wrong way.
>
> Do you have any other reasons for wanting this section in?
(2) A preliminary statement of scope for the TC whose formation the
list is intended to discuss.
Without a definition of what is to be tested for compliance, we are unable
to deliver the scope.
regards
--
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
