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

On 01/08/2014 06:15 AM, Tony Graham wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
I dislike the term "task force" just about as much as "secretariat" or 
"committee". But I guess as a collective noun for a group of people who 
accidentally find themselves sort of moving in the same rough direction, 
"working group" is positive...although the collective noun "quarrel" 
applied to a bunch of people is often apposite. :-)

I just had to work all that in too. :-)

I find the recent flurry of great posts by relatively numerous amounts 
of people with varied backgrounds to be great. There is finally some 
discussion momentum here. I'd draw on what's been said to say that 
XSL-FO should not be the single focus of this group, and that if there 
were any splitting of people in this group by interest, that it be 
informal...along the lines of "these folks have coder backgrounds and 
are interested in this", and "these folks have mainly BA-type 
backgrounds and are interested in this", and fairly frequently everyone 
commingles and bruits.

So no further formality.

Arved

Received on Wednesday, 8 January 2014 12:27:23 UTC