[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: QUESTION. Should we update our Requirements Document?
QUESTION. Should we update our Requirements Document? At 07:57 AM 6/8/2005 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: [...] >recommendations on references: confirm closure (IRI? XML 1.1?) >----- >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/cgmo-webcgm/email/archives/200506/msg00034.html Today we confirmed that 2.0 should go forward with URI [2] rather than IRI [3]. That raised the question in my mind. Our WebCGM 2.0 Requirements document [1] is linked from the Introduction of the WebCGM 2.0 text. It is fairly important, especially when going into W3C, for defending technical resolutions and scope of content. In addition to documenting our (limited) immediate requirements for full internationalization, we could also document our critical schedule requirement. RECOMMENDATION: Yes. VOLUNTEER? This would be good for a User to do -- ATA and/or S1000D. It needs to be done VERY delicately. W3C is not likely to be keen to hear "we don't need Internationalization", and we (CGMO) don't believe that. It's a matter of staged delivery of immediate priorities (2.0 in 2005) and long term requirements (e.g., 2.1 in 2006). Regards, -Lofton. [1] http://www.cgmopen.org/technical/WebCGM_20_Requirements.html [2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt [3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3987.txt
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]