What it doesn't do that I want to get done is changing SEQUENCE, but really I'm trying to point out that trying to keep the original schema inviolate constrains us way too much - we don't know enough about what we are doing to get it right the first time, and limiting us only to things you can do with extension namespaces is not feasible. Never being able to use the defined extensionPoints for example. If we can't use the extensionPoints, why are they there?
I don't want us to make promises we can't keep, and I want to fix things that are broken as early as possible, even if some early implementations have to be modified.
Brian
On Oct 28, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> On 2010-10-28 at 05:32:29, Brian Rosen wrote:
> [Lots of stuff]
>> Reissue the schemas.
>
> Because a disproportionate response to a small problem is always the best way forward.
>
> Seriously, things just aren't that broken. A little hack and we're home. Read the appendix of the local-civic draft and you'll see that the LoST problem isn't intractable.
>
> --Martin
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
