Shawn,<div><br></div><div>You surely got your answer to your previous question here</div><div><br></div><div>Mohamed<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Shawn Villaron <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:shawnv@microsoft.com">shawnv@microsoft.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Why do we need to differentiate T vs 376:1? I would assert that you don't, although I know that we all don't agree here.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:<a href="mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp">eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp</a>]<br>
</div><div class="im">Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 6:24 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org">e-SC34-WG4@ecma-international.org</a><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">Subject: Re: Proposed Response to FPDAM Part 1 BR-0001, et al<br>
<br>
><br>
> I'm still baffled why we're afraid to take a position here. We're<br>
>willing to take lots of strong positions elsewhere. Why are we scared<br>
>when it comes to "versioning?"<br>
<br>
MBs correctly pointed out our mechanism are not good enough for distuinguishing T and 1st edition Ecma 376. They are right. But we nevertheless did not provide any mechanisms. We have to explain why.<br>
<br>
I think that the existence of other mechanisms for versioning and extensibility is a red herring. After all, they do not help to distinguish T and 1st edition Ecma 376.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Makoto<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Innovimax SARL<br>Consulting, Training & XML Development<br>9, impasse des Orteaux<br>75020 Paris<br>Tel : +33 9 52 475787<br>Fax : +33 1 4356 1746<br><a href="http://www.innovimax.fr">http://www.innovimax.fr</a><br>
RCS Paris 488.018.631<br>SARL au capital de 10.000 €<br>
</div>