[meta-sig] Poll: how to coordinate XML efforts

Ken Manheimer klm@python.org
Thu, 12 Mar 1998 12:31:54 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 12 Mar 1998, Barry A. Warsaw wrote:

> >>>>> "RF" == Robin Friedrich <friedrich@pythonpros.com> writes:
> I'm not religious on any of the choices, but my preferences would be
>     RF> 4) Create the XML-sig tightly focused on the XML/Python
>     RF> issues.

I'm quite inclined to agree with this.  I certainly have an impression
of some strong impetus out there for an xml-focused sig, so i imagine
the hurdle of having a champion step forward and produce a mission is
not too difficult.  (Prospective champions, keep in mind that the burden
of the mission is not to corner anyone into committing to a tight time
frame for some kind of daunting deliverable, but rather to express a
firm focus for the sig, with specific direction, and ideally, directed
milestones to help guide the way.  At least, that's my sense of it.) 

> doc-sig is less appropriate because we're not (yet) talking about how
> to convert or write new Python documentation in XML.

Of all the other alternatives, i actually could see broadening the
agenda for the doc-sig, but (1) it really would have to fit with the
doc-sig champion's agenda, formalisms aside, and (2) i don't see a need
or great benefit in doing this (except for people looking for the sig
doing xml work, and hitting doc-sig first in the alphabetized list, and
naturally assuming that's where the work is).


(I would recommend removing the string-sig from further followup, since
this seems like a meta-sig issue - unless someone strongly feels the
string-sig is the right place for xml work - i don't.)