[exprla-devel] RE: [XPL] Re: XPL Working Draft
Status: Pre-Alpha
Brought to you by:
xpl2
Menu
▾
▴
[exprla-devel] RE: [XPL] Re: XPL Working Draft
|
From: reid_spencer <ras...@re...> - 2002-02-01 16:00:56
|
--- In xpl-dev@y..., "Richard Anthony Hein" <935551@i...> wrote:
Michael, Kurt,
I don't see how your comments differ from what I wrote. I guess I
didn't
make it very clear about the intention of the document.
It's meant to be our working draft (meaning it's not finalized), our
framework. As time goes by, comments from people will go into the
categories defined in the TOC. We will then have links to related
comments
and cross-referenced links added in. When something in discussion is
finalized and accepted by the group, it will be put into the accepted
categories, and taken out of discussion (of course, if necessary it
will be
brought back into discussion), and edited appropriately to be a
formalization, with links to cross-references intact. As more time
goes by,
those cross-references will also become accepted and formalized.
In the final analysis, it will end up becoming the XPL complete
reference.
Then, and only then, will it be submitted as a Note to the W3C for
their
review. I am not saying this is something that will be submitted to
the W3C
before it's finalized. By then we should know whether or not we are
going
to the W3C. If we do, we will have the Note, requirements, and
reference
completed as a side-effect to our work. Basically, this framework
will be
documenting XPL, as we go.
Does that clarify the issue? Because I am in agreement about not
going to
the W3C now, and I also agree that this is for us to work with. That
is the
intended purpose: to supply us with a framework in which to operate.
Richard A. Hein
-----Original Message-----
From: cagle@o... [mailto:cagle@o...]
Sent: July 8, 2000 11:28 AM
To: xpl@e...
Subject: Re: [XPL] Re: XPL Working Draft
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...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
------
--
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
xpl-unsubscribe@o...
--- End forwarded message ---
|
