[sc34wg3] XTM 2.0 topicRef - proposal for an erratum

[Lars Heuer]

Hi Lars,

[...]
> The question is: is it politically wise to make an XTM 2.1? We already
> have two XTM versions, which IMHO is one too many. Should we really  
> increase that to three? And what are the odds that there will be a  
> proper discussion of the issues this time around?

Well, without any doubt it would have been much better if we've seen
these problems 3 years ago, but I think we have to fix XTM 2.0
somehow. I'd prefer to avoid three XTM syntaxes, but I don't know how.
Maybe it's possible to put the proposed changes into an errata of XTM
2.0? The result would effectively be the same, but the reputation
would be different, maybe. I'd prefer the errata solution for
political and psychological reasons. :)

Best regards,
Lars
-- 
Semagia 
<http://www.semagia.com>