xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ted Leung" <twle...@sauria.com>
Subject Re: xml.apache.org charter proposal
Date Thu, 29 Mar 2001 06:45:01 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arved Sandstrom" <Arved_37@chebucto.ns.ca>
To: <general@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: xml.apache.org charter proposal


> At 12:39 AM 3/28/01 -0500, Scott_Boag@lotus.com wrote:
> >Here is my rough proposal for a revamped charter/mission statement for
> >xml.apache.org:
> >
> >========
> >The mission of the xml.apache.org project is:
> >
> >to provide commercial-quality, high-performance, well-tested,
> >standards-based XML components that are developed in an open and
> >collaborative fashion.
> >
> >     We define "XML Component" as being that which processes a
> >     standard that is based on XML, and which is generally
> >     applicable to a wide variety of applications.  Parsers,
> >      processors, editing tools, diagnostic tools, and
> >      XML-specific databases are examples of what we mean
> >      by components.
> >
> >to provide feedback to standards bodies (such as IETF and W3C) from an
> >implementation perspective.
> >
> >to build an XML infrastructure that fits into a coherent architecture, in
> >order to enable and encourage use of XML.
> >========
> >
> >By this charter, Cocoon would not today be accepted.  However, it should
be
> >kept as part of xml.apache.org as long as they wish to stay (I hear they
> >are thinking of forming their own PMC, so this shouldn't be an issue).
> >
> >The reason to constrain the mission is that XML is like motor oil... it
is
> >being used all over the machine.  Use of XML alone should not be part of
> >our acceptence criteria.  We should have a clear idea of what we are
trying
> >to do.  I'm not sure the above is it, but it's a first swag, and
hopefully
> >a good starting point for discussion...
>
> If we interpret "standard" to include W3C Recommendation (or something
> leading up to that), yes, this seems a good starting point, and it does
> include most of XML Apache as it now stands.

Some possible standards bodies would include W3C, IETF, OASIS, ISO....
Not just W3C.

> I don't think we want to rule out experimental projects, though. For
> example, if we stuck with "standards" then we'd only support XML Schema,
and
> if someone approached us with the equivalent of RELAX or TREX, what would
we
> say? Go away, you don't have the blessings of W3C? I mean, I truly hope we

In Xerces, the JDOM guys were basically told this, and non-W3C'ness was
the hammer that was applied to the nail.

> are not going to be just an implementations shop for W3C. I think there
are
> a bunch of XML problems out there that W3C doesn't have the best solution
> for, or even any solution for. Let me put it this way - who came up with
> SAX? And look at the other major XML parsing API that W3C came up with
> (which I truly dislike...)

I fully agree with you, Arved.  I do not believe that we should be just the
code-body
shop for W3C -- or any other "standards" body.   I also agree that it is
necessary to
have a place for experimental projects in order to keep the XML project
vital.  Innovation
comes from the bottom up.  The fish, on the other hand, rots from the head.

> OK, I'm not as anti-W3C as I sound. But I do believe that just because XML
> started with the W3C doesn't mean that they (in the large) really
understand
> it all that well. Or leastways, I think there's a heck of a lot of non-W3C
> people that understand XML as well, or better, than W3C does.

I am truly concerned that the W3C has lost the ability to restrain
design-by-committee
in its process.   All you have to do is look at Schema and XQuery in order
to see train wrecks in the works.

> I think "standards-based" is maybe a bit too constrictive, is my point
> Let's accept projects as they show up, on a case-by-case basis, if they
> propose to solve a real problem and it looks like they will do it well.
This
> covers standards, anyway - the whole point of having a standard
(presumably)
> is because it helps define a problem space and its solution.

I like this idea, but how do we make sure that we are dealing even-handedly
with
all projects that show up.  The ASF imprimatur is highly desirable.  That's
how
we got major politicking between Sun and IBM, and why we have 2 XML
codebases
that are the ASF XML Parser, depending on whose marketing folks you are
talking
to.

> Regards,
> Arved Sandstrom
>
> Fairly Senior Software Type
> e-plicity (http://www.e-plicity.com)
> Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org


Mime
View raw message