[exprla-devel] Re: [XPL] Re: XPL Working Draft
Status: Pre-Alpha
Brought to you by:
xpl2
|
From: reid_spencer <ras...@re...> - 2002-02-01 15:59:38
|
--- In xpl-dev@y..., cagle@o... wrote:
Richard,
I'm actually in agreement with Michael on this -- we're talking about
putting together an honest to god programming language here -- think
Perl or Java or C++ and you get a pretty good idea about what that
entails.
The best way to do this, IMHO, is to build the framework and
language, get other people on board to critique and build, and get
momentum behind it. I've written any number of proto-languages, and
found that before you write a requirements spec together it helps to
have a little clearer idea about what you want to have in there in
the first place. I'd suggest that we put together the requirements
document for our own use first, flesh out some first pass XPL working
samples, then when we've got something solid enough submit the
requirements doc to the W3C. This will take a while (take a look at
Schemas, which are still not ratified after three years of intense
negotiation), so there's no real need to hurry it.
-- Kurt
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Anthony Hein
To: xpl@e...
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2000 7:32 AM
Subject: RE: [XPL] Re: XPL Working Draft
Michael,
This is going to take a long time. We won't submit anything until
it's ready. I am confused here; I thought of all the things we were
going to do, submitting a Note (once ready) to the W3C was a sure
thing. When you say bigger players, they are also the ones who can
fund real solid research, and I do think it's all opensource. What
makes you think it's not?
Please tell me why you don't want to go to the W3C. I am not
saying let's go now, at all. But you seem to be saying, we may not
go ever.
Richard A. Hein
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Lauzon [mailto:ce940@f...]
Sent: July 8, 2000 9:52 AM
To: xpl@e...
Subject: [XPL] Re: XPL Working Draft
Richard,
I know you like the idea of submitting XPL to the W3C, but this
should
wait a good while, remember XPL is open source; though I really
wouldn't call anything the W3C does as open source (though I am
probably wrong here). So, let's get the framework down, and a
working
copy of XPL first, before we decide to contact the bigger
players, if
at all. (Though if we did contact the W3C, XPL would have more
recognization).
--- In xpl@e..., "Richard Anthony Hein" <935551@i...> wrote:
> Hi everyone. It's great that everyone seems keen again on
getting
down to
> some business. I was starting to lose hope. I hope now that
soon
we will
> have substantial gains made once we are able to answer the
vital
questions
> necessary to get to the next level: establishing the actual
programming
> model of XPL. However, first we need to have a framework in
place
in which
> to operate. Once this has become a reality, things will be
much
more
> organized, and we will all know where to put our ideas in order
to
ensure
> they are not lost in confusion, and will be addressed quickly.
>
> In addition, this will encourage others to contribute where
they
can, by
> making it easier for them to focus on their strengths, access
information
> related to their ideas and contributions more effectively, and
have
an all
> around better idea of the current and ongoing state of XPL.
>
> Since this is a cooperative effort, I am asking you all to look
at
this
> table of contents, and add your points to the list of items
where
> appropriate (please refrain from writing up issues - just
points at
issue
> will be included). Feel free to discuss, disseminate, and add
anything you
> feel is necessary towards the development of XPL. Once we have
established
> a framework of issues from which we can easily draw information
from
and put
> information into, we will be on the way to some serious
development.
>
> You may note that this TOC is somewhat similar to the Working
Drafts
that
> the W3C issues. This is not an accident. The goal of this
entire
document
> is to eventually have a completed draft. As a working draft,
this
document
> will be made available online, at our website, with links to
messages which
> relate to the specific points. It is the hope that this will
facilitate
> easy access to ongoing discussions, while providing everyone
with
the
> overall picture of the project as a whole. The final version of
the
draft,
> which will be submitted as a Note to the W3C, will have only
the
accepted
> points.
>
> =B7 Abstract
>
> =B7 Mission Statement
>
> =B7 Vision(s)
>
> =B7 Scope
>
> =B7 Design Goals (Accepted)
>
> =B7 Design Goals (Under Review)
>
> =B7 Requirements (Accepted)
>
> =B7 Requirements (Under Review)
>
> =B7 Terminology (Accepted)
>
> =B7 Terminology (Under Review)
>
> =B7 Semantics (Accepted)
> o Data Model
> o Production Rules
>
> =B7 Semantics (Under Review)
> o Data Model
> o Production Rules
>
> =B7 Syntax (Accepted)
> o XPL Elements and Attributes
> o Data Types
> o I/O
> o Patterns
> o Component Interaction
> o Object Model
>
> =B7 Syntax (Under Review)
> o XPL Elements and Attributes
> o Data Types
> o I/O
> o Patterns
> o Component Interaction
> o Object Model
>
> =B7 Appendices
> References
> Resources
>
> Group Members and Acknowledgements
>
>
>
> =3D=3D Richard Anthony Hein =3D=3D
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
xpl-unsubscribe@o...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
xpl-unsubscribe@o...
--- End forwarded message ---
|