The Draft Standard requirement for demonstrated interoperability for all features is documented in RFC2026. It's that requirement which leads to the popular conclusion that in many cases, adding a new feature is incompatible with moving to Draft Standard at the same time -- that popular conclusion is part of the folklore, not part of the requirements, which is appropriate. You could draw a different conclusion and argue for that conclusion and might meet with some success, because determining sufficient "demonstrated interoperability" is sometimes going to be a judgement call anyway. Lisa On Oct 2, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
|
- Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard? Robert Sayre
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard? Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard? Robert Sayre
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standar... Paul Hoffman
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Sta... Robert Sayre
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draf... James M Snell
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draf... Paul Hoffman
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To ... Robert Sayre
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draf... Lisa Dusseault
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Sta... Julian Reschke
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard? James M Snell
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard? Eric Scheid
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard? Elliotte Harold
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard? Paul Hoffman
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard? Julian Reschke
- Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standar... Martin Duerst
- Atom and bidi (was: Re: Atom Syndication Format To D... James M Snell
- Re: Atom and bidi (was: Re: Atom Syndication For... David Powell
- Re: Atom and bidi (was: Re: Atom Syndication... David Powell