QUESTION. Should we update our Requirements Document?

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

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