xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arved Sandstrom <Arved...@chebucto.ns.ca>
Subject Re: Volunteers needed: Reboot of the XML 'PMC'.
Date Sun, 04 Mar 2001 01:51:31 GMT
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001, Arnaud Le Hors wrote:
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> > 
> > But XML Apache has another current
> > goal - "to provide feedback to standards bodies (such as IETF and W3C) from
> > an implementation perspective" - that covers this base, too; we are
> > responsible for generating quality feedback to the spec writers. Why?
> > Because we said so, ourselves. And I'm not sure we do that so well, either.
> 
> I couldn't tell if it's true for all the XML projects but my guess is
> that the situation is actually better than you might think. As it
> stands, several committers of Xerces and Xalan are members of the
> various standard committees that actually produce the specs that govern
> these projects. I, for one, regularly forward Xerces users feedback to
> the W3C Working Groups I'm in (XML Core and DOM). I'm sure this is true
> for other committers involved in similar groups.
> This said, it would be nice to identify these people and figure how much
> coverage we actually have.

FOP committers have personal contacts with several members of the W3C XSL WG
(FO group), and we touch base with other implementors to help define something
of a common front. And I know that Max Froumentin regularly monitors fop-dev.
Apart from sending direct requests for clarification and comments to XSL
editors, which is infrequent at the moment, we are aware that several XSL (FO)
spec types keep an eye on certain mailing lists (Mulberry XSL, and now W3C XSL
FO), and these are useful places for raising general concerns. So we are not
doing too badly.

I don't know how much input and fedback James Tauber managed to provide to the
XSL WG back in 1999 or early 2000, say, but since then I'd guess that
implementor feedback has played a minimal part in guiding XSL 1.0 (mostly
because it was too late). The real challenge will be in seeing what we can do
better with XSL 2.0.

I'm personally hoping that the WG just declares XSL 1.0 a Recommendation and
moves on. There is enough of an implementation base and enough community
comprehension of the spec to declare victory, IMO. Right now there is something
of a delay due to unfortunate (and unrealistic) exit conditions built into the
Candidate Recommendation, which has to do with testing. I don't really want to
get into the details, but suffice it to say that some things weren't well
handled. I'm waiting to hear back as to what will happen with this. Be that as
it may, I think that FOP as a whole will be quite proactive in widening our
engagement with W3C XSL WG members, in future.

Regards,
Arved Sandstrom



Mime
View raw message