Re: XPP and Rechartering

I agree.  Let's publish as a note and be done with it.

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> As it comes time to consider rechartering, I think we need to face the
> fact that the WG has, by and large, lost the will to push XPP forward.
> I propose that we do not want it in our next charter. In fact, if I'm
> perfectly honest, I propose that we abandon it now:
>
> * The original intent was that we'd define *the* XML processing model.
>   I think we've clearly shown that there is no "the" model, there are a
>   space of possibilities.
>
> * Further, I think our experience with getting the document published
>   demonstrates that there is not even consensus within the community
>   about the right way to characterize that space or even by what
>   criteria.
>
> * I don't think one can argue persuasively that the document will have
>   more value as a Recommendation than it will as a Note. And we can
>   publish it as a Note today.
>
> * It has been overtaken by events. Today, anyone designing an API for
>   which this document would provide useful guidance is vastly more
>   likely to use JSON than XML. Any API with enough complexity to make
>   XML the likely choice is probably going to wrestle with issues that
>   this document doesn't address.
>
> * I believe our staff contact would support a motion to abandon it
>   as a Recommendation track requirement.
>
> It's a dead horse, can we please stop beating it now?
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh
> Lead Engineer
> MarkLogic Corporation
> Phone: +1 512 761 6676
> www.marklogic.com



-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics

Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 22:18:08 UTC