Re: [woes] New WOES charter proposal

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

On 16/07/11 01:23, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 
> On 7/14/2011 1:45 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> The first requirement is for proponents to provide much more explicit
>>> details about what is being proposed in the use of CMS.
> ...
>> Well, I don't really follow your logic there, but we're not
>> aiming to do a new thing here.
> ...
>> Anyway the path for developing yet another crypto format
>> is a pretty well trodden one and IMO CMS is the best current
>> starting point for that process, so I think its entirely
>> reasonable to ask people why they disagree with that.
>>
>> It does of course presume familiarity with CMS, but then
>> that should be a prerequisite for working on woes, really.
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Oh.  This working group is merely a CMS encoding exercise?  That was not
> at all clear previously.
>  
> I suspect I am not the only one who missed this as the anchoring and
> inflexible premise to the work.  (For reference, that requires even
> stronger language than is in the current draft.)

Maybe you could put [] around the sarcasm, given that
this is JSON related? :-)

I asked for examples of what's not covered by CMS but
is needed here. I did that actually wanting to get an
answer since I may well be missing something. (So far,
no substantive answer has been offered.) I was not
trying to score some rhetorical points.

S.