> From: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
> [Sorry to have missed the 10 January deadline for comments; the list
> server bounced my mail.]

 As I mentioned to a new poster yesterday, I appologize for the artificial
deadline, it has been extended. It seems that it has taken awhile for
substantive discussion to take hold (or at least, to resume) and there are
now a number of issues under discussion. I would estimate at this point that
this stage of the process should take another two months. 

As I have done with other similar messages that cover a range of topics, I
am breaking this down into sub topics and separate threads, this one on
"Plans for standardization of this spec".
> The document is explicitly intended "for review", but is less explicit
> about who is intended to review it, or with what criteria in mind. The
> following comments are offered on the assumption that public review is
> allowed, expected, or hoped for, and that essentially all aspects of
> the document are legitimate topics for review. If these assumptions are
> not those of the group preparing the document, you will wish to read
> the following comments with the necessary mental reservations.

Public review is allowed, expected, and hoped for, and all aspects of are
legitimate topics for review. 
Who may comment: anyone subscribed to this listserv. Who may subscribe:
anyone. Criteria: An interest in either using or implementing the spec. 

> 2 Plans for the future
> The document itself says nothing about what is to happen to the
> proposal when completed.

There has been little to no discussion of this yet within this forum, and
this is as good a time as any to begin the discussion.  

First, this spec need to undergo some form of standardization, beyond this
current process. Many people who are participating have made it clear to me
that although their organization has a great deal of interest it cannot take
it seriously or invest in it unless it is on a standards track. 

So with that as a premise, which standards body? First, I'll list those that
I think are possible: W3C, IETF, and NISO. There are a few others that come
immediately to mind that you will say "why not this one" or "why not that
one", and I'm hoping to avoid that conversation but will discuss it if
pressed.   I will say this about ISO however: if this is standardized in
W3C, it can now be fastracked (that might not be the current term but you
know what I mean) in ISO.  My preference is W3C. LC is a W3C member, I am
the AC rep, and that might make the bureaucratic process nearly tolerable.
And there are other technical reasons why I like W3C.  

However, I welcome discussion on this.