resuming progress on TAP

[Ray Plante]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Arnold Rots wrote:
>> From that perspective, it makes sense to first make sure the AQ
> standard is well-established and then work the PQ in - which, if I
> understand the conversation correctly, is precisely what Keith is
> proposing. So, (I think) I agree with Ray and wonder where the current
> debate is heading.

Just to be clear about my point:  While you may think that, say, PQ 
defined on top of AQ is a good idea, I would like to know what is wrong or 
problematic with what has been done to date to justify stepping backward, 
further from the finish line?

cheers,
Ray