Re: Concerns

[John Lawler <[e-mail]>]

>These two items are in conflict.  I don't see how you can assemble a
>concrete list of requirements *without* reexamining the goal of the
>working group.

My point is that if we are still at this stage of the game at this late
date, then something is seriously wrong with the process. And in any case,
without such a list, or without a serious chnage in the way things are
handled within the WG, the only decision that can reasonably be made is to
let both specs advance through the process. *Neither* spec should be chosen
or killed because they are allegedly in or out of compliance with a
non-existant and still-evolving set of criteria.

I still would much prefer to see a unified proposal--please see the separate
message I've posted with a proposal towards that end.

-John