Re: [cti] Question on indicator patterns

[Trey Darley <trey@kingfisherops.com>]

On 19.07.2016 16:00:30, Patrick Maroney wrote:
> I will simplify and close on my argument to the community:
> Conformance to a standard IS an implementation detail. The
> generalized question posed to the community was whether or not
> conformant implementations MUST implement all features and
> functions. The argument is that they should not for the reasons
> given. The decision appears to be that they must.
> 

Hey, Pat -

I think the argument is rather that at this stage in the game we're
not prepared to have that conversation. We've got a number of folks in
the TC working furiously - early mornings, late nights, weekends, and
holidays - all striving to get the committee draft specs out by 29
July.

I don't think there's anyone in the TC who would discount the need to
eventually define specifics around conformance to the CTI standards.
It's just that there are only so many hours in a day, and out of the
almost 300 TC members, there are about 25-30 who are doing the lion's
share of the work.

We will get around to tackling conformance soon. We just don't have
the bandwidth *now*. Moreover, as there are liable to be substantive
changes to the various draft specs during the upcoming public comment
periods it would be rather a dubious undertaking to tackle conformance
*now*.

-- 
Cheers,
Trey
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
Kingfisher Operations, sprl
gpg fingerprint: 85F3 5F54 4A2A B4CD 33C4  5B9B B30D DD6E 62C8 6C1D
++--------------------------------------------------------------------------++
--
"Conservative, n.: One who admires radicals centuries after they're
dead." --Leo Rosten

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature