[Standards-JIG] Re: XHTML-IM: moving forward

Peter Saint-Andre stpeter at jabber.org
Mon Sep 13 16:07:54 UTC 2004

In article <stpeter-7884F8.09524313092004 at sea.gmane.org>,
 Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:

> So may want to leave the door open to defining additional XHTML 
> Integration Sets (or XHTML Family Modules, though I would prefer the 
> former) in the future. Thus we would adjust JEP-0071 to define the 
> container mechanism as well as the first Integration Set (which we could 
> label something other than XHTML-IM if desired -- XHTML-IM-Basic or 
> somesuch might be more descriptive); we could also split the first 
> Integration Set into a separate JEP and make JEP-0071 just the 
> framework, but that is more work for the author without a great deal of 
> benefit as far as I can see. 

Hmm, now that I look at this, I think it would make more sense to split 
out the first Integration Set into a separate JEP -- so JEP-0071 would 
be the framework and each JEP that defines an Integration Set would be a 
"profile" of JEP-0071 (much as JEP-0096 is a profile of JEP-0095). But 
I'll wait until we have consensus on this approach before doing all that 


More information about the Standards mailing list