>My recollection
>was that we agreed that we had a "rough consensus", and that the
>minority position on XML encoding would at least be noted as we
>moved forward in the process. In effect, we agreed to disagree,
>with the discussion moving on to take place at the next higher level,
>IESG last call. I presume that the IESG can make the determination
>if we have sufficient consensus to move this on to Proposed Standard.
>
>...walker
>
>--
>Jim Walker <walker@dazel.com>
>System Architect/DAZEL Wizard
>DAZEL Corporation, Austin, TX
>
Jim,
You and Josh are right about the:
>>"rough consensus", and that the
>>minority position on XML encoding would at least be noted as we
>>moved forward in the process"rough consensus", and that the
>minority position on XML encoding would at least be noted as we
>moved forward in the process.
I am sorry if this was not clear in my earlier message to the group.
I will make sure that this is crisp and clear in the message to the IESG.
I hope that everybody on the IPP DL have also understood the clarification
on this subject. More details can be found in the minutes circulated
yesterday.
Carl-Uno
Carl-Uno Manros
Principal Engineer - Advanced Printing Standards - Xerox Corporation
701 S. Aviation Blvd., El Segundo, CA, M/S: ESAE-231
Phone +1-310-333 8273, Fax +1-310-333 5514
Email: manros@cp10.es.xerox.com