Ovid wrote: > --- On Tue, 19/8/08, Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think we should start the process by specifying TAP >> version 12 aka core TAP. >> The stuff we all agree on and is in wide use. Extension >> discussion should be >> orthogonal so as not to stall the standardization process. > > That's the stance I took in Copenhagen last week. I was unanimously voted > down.
Seeing as how something as simple as key prefixes derailed the process last time, we're doomed. What was the argument against? > Pushing this to the IETF list is good as it hopefully gives TAP a bit more > Kredibility (like Kwalitee), > and I suspect is more likely to attract people outside of the Perl community. We need that. Sorry, I don't understand how this relates. To be clear, I wasn't suggesting not running things through the IETF. Just separating the "core TAP" IETF spec process from the TAP extension process. -- On error resume stupid
