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: xml.apache.org charter proposal
Date Wed, 28 Mar 2001 23:21:12 GMT
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
>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.

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 
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...)

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 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.

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

View raw message