[QTI] 2.1 vs 2.0?

[Steve Lay]

Daniel Cassidy wrote:
 > For the moment I am implementing only QTI 2.0 on the basis that 2.1 is
 > in draft. Should I reconsider this decision?

The extended public draft phase of the specification development process 
is supposed to give people an opportunity to implement the specification 
and for user communities to form around it.  The process of creating 
profiles is documented on the IMS website:

http://www.imsglobal.org/ap/apv1p0/imsap_oviewv1p0.html

You are not the only the person I've heard say they are postponing 
consideration of 2.1 while it is still in the draft phase, for 
understandable reasons.

Speaking personally, I don't think this hiatus was/is expected by IMS. 
Other technical standards are treated differently.  The IETF publishes 
internet 'drafts' (RFCs) which are widely read and implemented.  These 
drafts are updated, in some cases fairly regularly, without seeming to 
hamper adoption.

I'm not disputing that the value proposition for implementing QTI is 
significantly different from that of the popular RFCs, but understanding 
why might help inform the IMS process in future.

I think it is worth raising this issue directly with IMS (this list is 
not an official channel of course) but I've also put this part of my 
reply in a separate thread in case it sparks discussion here.

Steve