On 10.04.2010 12:52, T.J. Crowder wrote:
Julian,
> > For one thing, we're after last call, aren't we?
> No, we aren't.
Thanks. Sorry, that was very sloppy terminology on my part, obviously
there are still a number of outstanding bugs/issues (per section 3 of
the last status report, "Getting to Last Call").
I should have said, or indeed asked, are we past last call for *new*
proposals?
...
Officially, no.
Apologies, I'm sure this is documented somewhere. I kicked around the
working group pages but I'm still relatively new to the working group's
page structure (and terminology).
...
You found the status report, which is probably the best summary of where
we are.
Going back to the proposal: similar proposals have been made in the
past, and have been rejected back then (several reasons that come to
mind: fallback behaviour, incompatibility with XML serialization), so
I'd be really surprised for this to get new considerations unless better
reasons than back then are presented (and sorry, I don't have a link to
these discussions right now).
Best regards, Julian
