Re: Formation of SGML/XML Policy Group
On , May 3, Mark Eichin wrote:
> FYI, "thot.org" is someone else (and I'm already on debian-sgml.)
>
Sorry about that. I made the mistake of using my organic storage
device to recall your address - my brain.
> This does seem like the kind of thing that needs a focus-person
> (serving as document editor but also has "driver" in terms of figuring
> out what needs doing an asking for help or at least argument or
> consensus on those bits...) rather than yet-another-list.
Yep, the editor would really play an essential role in this.
I certainly wasn't at all advocating the creation of a new list.
> I'd actually expect most-if-not-all of the discussion to belong on
> debian-sgml.
Agreed.
> Do I understand correctly that the long-term goal here is to have high
> quality XML/SGML support in LSB?
Yep. And also the converse: That high-quality implementations will
help drive the formation of an intelligent spec. Hopefully, we'll be
one of those.
> With Debian as the "testbed" in the sense that we're closest to
> having something useful and would thus be the most effective
> contributors,
You're exposing your Debian bias, here:-) Quite understandable, IMO.
However, I'm not so sure that your statement about debian being
closest to having something useful is necessarily true anymore. SuSE,
Mandrake, and Redhat all have working setups. Of course, they all have
bugs too, just like we do.
> and as a side effect would help formalize and "flesh
> out" the Debian XML/SGML support as well?
Exactly.
The best way to ensure that the situation unfolds in this way would be
for you (and other debian xml/sgml developers) to join the
soon-to-be-formed LSB-xml-sgml Working Group.
You can do so by responding to the RFC I posted at:
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/lsb-xml-sgml/2002-April/000228.html
(But please reply to the list via <lsb-xml-sgml@dlug.duke.edu>, and
not to me.)
The main points your post should make are:
- you support the formation of the Working Group operating
under a well-defined process policy (such as the draft
"Proposed Process Model' I point to.)
- you intend to participate in the developoment of the
specification as Debian representative.
BTW, I've already submitted the proposal for formation of the WG to
the Free Standards Group, and am waiting to hear back.
Cheers,
Mark "more than you asked for" Johnson
--
_____________________________________
Mark Johnson <mark@duke.edu>
Debian SGML <mrj@debian.org>
Home Page: <http://dulug.duke.edu/~mark/>
GPG fp: 50DF A22D 5119 3485 E9E4 89B2 BCBC B2C8 2BE2 FE81
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-sgml-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: