Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Wed Aug 15 22:57:23 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> Based on my experience in the IETF since 2002, I am not familiar with a
>> formal process for doing draft proposals there. You just publish an
>> Internet-Draft, others may propose similar or competing I-Ds, and you
>>
Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Wed Aug 15 21:01:07 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> The XSF is a standards development organization. We're supposed to be
>> developing standards. If people want to publish the results of their
>> experiments on their own websites as input to the XSF's standards
>> devel
On Wed Aug 15 21:01:07 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
The XSF is a standards development organization. We're supposed to
be
developing standards. If people want to publish the results of their
experiments on their own websites as input to the XSF's standards
development process, they are free to
On Wed Aug 15 22:57:23 2007, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Based on my experience in the IETF since 2002, I am not familiar
with a
formal process for doing draft proposals there. You just publish an
Internet-Draft, others may propose similar or competing I-Ds, and
you
hash it out on mailing lists an
Boyd Fletcher wrote:
>
>
> On 8/15/07 5:34 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Boyd Fletcher wrote:
>>> In the W3, they publish in the internal working groups multiple versions of
>>> specs for a standard that then hash it out. I think we need a similar
>>> process.
>> Sure,
On 8/15/07 5:34 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Boyd Fletcher wrote:
>> In the W3, they publish in the internal working groups multiple versions of
>> specs for a standard that then hash it out. I think we need a similar
>> process.
>
> Sure, people here can publish thing
Boyd Fletcher wrote:
> In the W3, they publish in the internal working groups multiple versions of
> specs for a standard that then hash it out. I think we need a similar
> process.
Sure, people here can publish things on their own websites and we can
use those as input to the design process. But
In the W3, they publish in the internal working groups multiple versions of
specs for a standard that then hash it out. I think we need a similar
process.
I think we need a more organized approach to developing complex XEPs.
On 8/15/07 4:01 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
Boyd Fletcher wrote:
>
> On 8/15/07 1:54 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Dave Cridland wrote:
>>> as an
>>> experimental protocol,
>> Unlike the IETF, we don't have the concept of an "Experimental" spec.
>> The closest we come is Informational specs. More here:
>>
>> http:
