In message <20130504221332.5E8DE33E70FE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mark Andrews writes:
>
> In message <6.2.5.6.2.20130504095840.0d4a98d8@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, S Moonesamy writes:
> > Hi Doug,
> > At 16:19 03-05-2013, Doug Barton wrote:
> > >I am not saying that the WG members (or chairs) should be given the
> > >wet-noodle treatment over having reached a bad decision, but what is
> > >cross-area review for if not to catch cases where the WG echo
> > >chamber/tunnel vision/what have you -- resulted in a bad outcome?
> >
> > I'll try explain the problem as I saw it.
> >
> > (a) You should have both X and Y
> >
> > (b) You must have either X or Y
> >
> > (c) If you have X and Y they must be identical
> >
> > (d) I can ask you for either X or Y, or for both X and Y
(e) X is only for backwards compatibility.
> >
> > Regards,
> > S. Moonesamy
The publisher can choose to interoperate with everyone by publishing
both.
The client side can choose to interoperate with everyone by looking
for both.
Both side can choose their level of interoperability. There is no
bug.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@xxxxxxx