'XSL-FO task force'? [Was: Revise group description?]

On Sat, December 28, 2013 3:06 pm, Tony Graham wrote:
> On Tue, December 17, 2013 6:19 pm, Jean Kaplansky wrote:
>> I know that most of the activity in this group has been around XSL-FO,
>> but
>> I think we might get more interest if we just say:
>>
>> “For people interested in page layout technologies…” rather than
>> explicitly saying XSL-FO.
...
>> From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com<mailto:dave.pawson@gmail.com>>
> ...
>> An alternative:
>> the Print & Page Layout Community Group is  here to discuss XSL-FO,
>> requirements or other aspects of XML in print.
>>
>> The success of the XSL-FO as a technology shows there's a
>> strong interest in development and  implementation. The
>> Print and Page Layout Community Group is intended as a place to
>> build a  community of XSL-FO users and  raise the
>> visibility of this  technology
>
> I don't think that it is viable for this CG to be only about XSL-FO.  I,
> personally, would much rather that this CG was neutral ground rather than
> just the last bastion of XSL-FO.  It is, of course, the last bastion of
> XSL-FO just because there is no other, but if that shouldn't be our sole
> purpose.
...
> But that can happen without the CG being explicitly only about XSL-FO.  It
> hasn't happened while we've said we're only about XSL-FO, so it's not the
> CG description that's holding us back.

Since the W3C seems to like task forces these days, we could be open and
still be about XSL-FO if we have a 'XSL-FO task force' for as many as will
while continuing to talk about crystal goblets, windows, etc., as general
business.

Alternatively, any XSL-FO core could be revolting (sorry, just had to work
in that word in that tense somehow) and either demanding that the rest
take the non-FO stuff elsewhere or going off themselves and making another
CG with XSL-FO in its name, but I admit I haven't caught any hint that
people are contemplating either of those two options.

Currently I'm working on an email summarising the discussions to date, but
I just thought I'd add that to the mix.

Regards,


Tony.

Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 10:16:18 UTC