Re: process for workprocess cte

[Terry Allen <tallen@sonic.net>]

Jon wrote:
| Oops.  Sorry, I've caused some confusion by not keeping up with
| changes in nomenclature.

I see I've been confused as well.  (I still want to know whether the
text at the site is authoritative, and if so, it needs a version
identifier and a date of last revision).  I get the distinction now.

as for my nit:

| | | Both Eduardo Gutentag and David Singer
| | | have registered opinions to the contrary, but I maintain that in
| | | designing XML standards, 
| | 
| | please let's shift to "XML specifications" or "XML applications" to
| | avoid confusion with what the W3C thinks it's doing.
| 
| I think you mean "confusion with that the W3C acts like what it's
| doing."  On paper, the W3C has been very careful to say that it is
| *not* developing standards; that's why the final stage in the W3C
| process is "recommendation."  I belong to the school of thought that
| believes that no organization in which all final decisions are made by
| an individual can be called a standards organization.  OASIS, on the
| other hand, certainly can act as a standards organization, and can be
| favorably compared in this respect with small, recognized standards
| bodies like the IEEE Standards Association.

I still want to avoid confusion.  And what's being designed in committee is
a specification; it may become a standard or not, but that happens later.
We're talking about estimating time to completion here - that's time
to the completion of the spec, not to its adoption as standard (by OASIS
or ISO or the IETF or the IEEE or the Reform Party).

regards, Terry