Re: Another viewpoint on validation

On Mon, April 9, 2012 6:59 pm, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 14:12 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
...
>> > Note that now 'we' are the spec writers?
>>
>> Uhm, I thought it's the W3C WG that make up the actual spec writers, not
>> the PPL community group. I can't currently commit enough time to join
>> the XPPL WG.
>
> Not enough other people had time to join the XPPL WG, not even an hour a

The other hurdle beyond time is often the cost of membership, unless you
are an invited expert, but the WG is/was already heavy on invited experts.

> week. So the work has stopped, and as chair of it, I'm looking for other
> ways forward.

I don't think we'd all be here if we weren't looking for XSL-FO to move
forward.  Whether or not the ppl CG takes over the work of the XPPL WG
remains to be seen, I think.  If it did, it could be just a rearranging of
the deckchairs on the Titanic, or it could be the best thing to happen to
the spec, but time would have to tell.

Personally, I don't see that the W3C is set up for CGs to write a spec in
the absence of a WG to take it over and bless it.  For starters, CGs don't
come with CVS or Mercurial access on the W3C servers so it would be harder
for a CG to do things that fit into the regular spec-production processes.

It could be interesting to put the current XSL-FO 2.0 XML source on
somewhere like GitHub (since it's the fashionable open-source code
repository site of the instant) and see what happens to it.  It would also
be interesting to see how that fits with the W3C license, but that's
another story.

This CG will do what interests the people on this CG.  AFAIK, no-one here
is here because their manager told them to join (not that it's likely to
bother anyone if that were the case), so if people aren't interested in
something, they won't do it.

Before this thread lurched in this direction, I had been considering
writing a message asking whether we thought we had any deliverables or
whether the 'water-cooler' aspect was all that was aspired to.  There had
been some interest in tests and a test suite, and shoring up the
foundations of XSL 1.1 implementations is a useful task even if it's not
in the same direction as working on the XSL-FO 2.0 spec.

So what do we want to do?  Is there enough commonality that we can do it
together?

Regards,


Tony.

Received on Friday, 13 April 2012 21:45:03 UTC