Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs a YES.
Comment (2011-01-17 for -)
INTRODUCTION, paragraph 4:
> The syntax of this 'jms' URI is not compatible with any known current
> vendor implementation, but the expressivity of the format should
> permit all vendors to use it.
So are there vendor implementations of 'jms' already? If yes, what it
the value in publishing a specification that is not compatible with
any of them? Or do we have an indication that the vendors will adopt