Re: Another viewpoint on validation

Probably a good start, let's get an idea of what people would like to do.

I'm a technical guy, I have both Apache FOP and xmlroff source
downloaded and I'm looking at things I can help with. But that's not why
I joined this group.

In the context of this group I'd like to:

1. Provide elbow-grease help with tests;

2. Participate in an effort to identify "fuzzy" or ambiguous spec
pieces, and attempt to deliver group interpretations of how
implementations should behave. These certainly existed when I was active
with FOP and I'd have to assume they exist now;

3. Continue participating in the discussions with respect to validation:
how best to validate, what can we do to help, etc.

That's a start for me.

Arved

On 12-04-13 06:44 PM, Tony Graham wrote:
> 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 Saturday, 14 April 2012 00:04:09 UTC