[sc34wg3] Slides for XTM 2.1 discussion

[Steve Pepper]

I wrote:
 
| Regarding the other proposed changes, I cannot say that it has been
| demonstrated to me that #1460, #1462 or #1459 are show-stoppers

I was a bit hasty here. The description of #1462 [1] does not give any use case
examples to justify the change, but the meeting slides [2] state that "one major
commercial customer had to drop XTM 2.0 because of this."

If this is the case, then the change seems justified. However, since it is minor
and backwards compatible, it should be done through a TC without upping the
version number, for the reasons I wrote. This means we should also avoid talking
about "XTM 2.1". If there is a need to refer to the pre-TC version of 2.0 it
should be called the pre-TC version of 2.0.

Steve

[1] http://projects.topicmapslab.de/issues/1462
[2] http://www.isotopicmaps.org/sam/xtm-2.1-issues.pdf