I don't think we said that. We said that we were aware that we might not
get everything right first-time in 1.0 (but who expects that in an x.0
version), and that we wouldn't have everything that people needed (e.g.
we deliberately left scan out) and we said that we expected a 1.1
version to fix any mistakes and add additional functionality.

That is a little different from saying that 1.0 is just an experiment!
1.0 is perfectly stable and usable (albeit with certain constraints).

Matthew

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:20 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: 1.1 Versioning
> 
> > Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 23:19:50 -0400
> > From: "LeVan,Ralph" <[log in to unmask]>
> >
> > I think we said from the beginning that version 1.0 would be
> > replaced, not upgraded.  I don't think we ever promised smooth
> > upward compatibility.  The first version was an experiment that
> > would lead, within one or two more versions at most, to a stable
> > final version.
> 
> If that really is what we said, can we please at least fix 1.1
> properly so that we don't screw up in the same way again when we go to
> 1.2?  This is going to make us look very stupid.
> 
>  _/|_    
> _______________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <[log in to unmask]>  
> http://www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\  "Schuh's book is very good, but [...] some of us would apply
>          his definition of `definition' to `diagnosis', and would
>          `define' on descent" -- Chris Brochu.
> 
> --
> Listen to my wife's new CD of kids' music, _Child's Play_, at
>         http://www.pipedreaming.org.uk/childsplay/
> 
>