[QTI] Re: QTI 2.1 draft specification withdrawn

[Daniel Cassidy]

2009/3/30 Niall Barr <n.barr at admin.gla.ac.uk>:
> Is it possible that all the interest is from academic (as opposed to
> commercial) uses, and that with the level of clarity in the specification
> and the existance of a good, liberally licenced opensource implementation
> there is no reason for the people working on QTI 2.1 to ever be very visible
> to IMS.

Certainly we are engaged in implementing it commercially. However, the
organisation I work for has a tendency to be rather secretive, so we
are perhaps not really visible to IMS either. That said, certainly we
would have offered feedback if there were a problem; the fact that we
have (to my knowledge) not done so is reflective of the high quality
of the specification.

Dan.