On Apr 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Dave Cridland <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Instead of Experimental, maybe a state before the standards-track proper, called "Proposed Standard", might work, beyond which you'd need two interoperable implementations to demonstrate utility and functionality. > > I appreciate it's a radical suggestion. That’s not radical. Radical would be getting to this “proposed standard” of which you speak in a few months rather than a few years, and without achieving perfection or even Pete’s definition of rough consensus. Yoav