Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Canonicalizations galore
--- On Tue, 6/24/08, Dave Pawson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > From: Dave Pawson <email@example.com> > Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Canonicalizations galore > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 1:36 PM > 2008/6/24 jose lorenzo <email@example.com>: > > What then, if any, might be the OIIC's initial set > of deliverables/scope/etc in this area of > canonicalizations/diffs/etc? > > Wording to require the TC to deliver a definition of c18N ... > That's doing the work. Our scope is defining what's > to be done IIRC, a deliverable to write up an ODF mapping was already tentatively added to the TC charter. I think you (Dave) added it in response to Sanders' initial argument, partly based around the utility such a deliverable would have for testing purposes to various groups (very germane). This further discussion (the existing "Canonicalizations galore" sub-thread) might lead to the scope being loosened up to recognize that we might address more than one such deliverable initially and then potentially continue to release more mappings (plus required tid bits) over time. One related question would be what is the intended lifetime of the TC? Is it destined to become the long-lasting right/left arm of the main TC or will it resolve it's various issues and disappear (with another TC to possibly take its place later on)?