RE: [xtm-wg] Status of Core Deliverables document

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

> [If you are not interested in process issues related to the
> development of the XTM spec, feel free to ignore this posting.]

[steve pepper]
> Several comments on this mailing list during the last couple of
> weeks suggest that the syntax no longer accurately reflects the
> model.
> If that really is the case, then we absolutely must fix the problems,
> even if that means changing the Dec 4 DTD in ways that are non-
> backwards compatible.

Alternatively, the conceptual model could be altered.

This would be a good deal easier than altering the DTD, since (a) at
least in my recollection, no vote was ever taken to approve the CM as
presented, (b) that would invalidate no existing instances, and (c) the
mandate given by the AG to the CM-group-that was in Montreal was very
carefully stated so as not to imply that the syntax in no way
"reflected" the CM. If it did so, development would not have been able
to proceed in parallel. 

S.


=====
<!-- "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
     - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations -->

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com