Re: [election-services] Re possible EML v5.0 submission to ISO/IEC JTC1

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>]

   Thanks for the kind assumption, David, but Lord no:  if "EML" is 
the way that your implementers to date, Council of Europe, etc. know 
it, then that's your "brand" and we ought to go with it.
   And as for vote, no need, I have been informed that the TC 
already was consulted and indicated its desire to submit.
   Just waiting now for the advice about which JTC1 panel ought to 
receive it.  Which I hope to see by calendar month end, knowing a 
bit about the schedules of those involved.
   Regards Jamie

-------- Original Message --------
Date: 	Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:33:52 -0700
From: 	David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info>
Subject: 	RE: Fw: [election-services] Re possible EML v5.0 
submission to
ISO/IEC JTC1
To: 	John Borras <johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk>
cc: 	David Canning <David.Canning@JUSTICE.GSI.GOV.UK>, Stuart 
Harrington
<stuart.harrington@justice.gsi.gov.uk>, EML TC
<election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>, James Bryce Clark
<jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>

John,
Looks very good to me.
I think Jamie was thinking the ElectionML was more meaningful for ISO
members - but I agree - there's enough in the material to make it clear
what EML relates to - and best not to add a potential cause for 
confusion.
I agree this positioning is spot on.
Let's hope ISO likes it too!
Do we need a formal approve for the submission format - or just a show
of hands here?
Thanks, DW