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

[Fred L. Drake]

Robin Friedrich writes:
 > 1)  Exhume the web-sig for the XML discussions as it is a W3C technology.
 > (People interested only in SGML may object.)

  Not just SGML people, but also XML people that aren't interested, or 
only peripherally interested, in Web applications.

 > 2)  Use the string-sig. (even though I would argue it's better used for the
 > unicode discussions, and the like)

  I could live with this, but I think it belongs to a different
abstraction layer.

 > 3)  Use the doc-sig.  (since we are talking about documentation technology,
 > n.b. it was created to discuss Python documentation efforts and tools for

  Marginally tolerable, but off topic enough I'd rather not.  There is 
no effort that I'm aware of to use XML for Python documentation.
(Which is different from the answer you get after
s/XML/SGML/g. ... Oops, sorry, I had to use P*rl recently. ;-( )

 > 4)  Create the XML-sig tightly focused on the XML/Python issues.

  This would be my preference at this point, actually, if the level of 
interest (hopefully *not* level of traffic!) will be maintained.

 > 5)  Create an SGML oriented sig which includes the XML effort.

  Could be done, but I don't think anyone's brought up any particular
SGML deliverables.

 > 6)  None of the above. use comp.lang.python

  This would not be acceptable.

  Andrew:  You proposed a termination / final delivery date of June
'98; I would make it Dec.  Some of us have outside issues (like kids)
that make time scales change substantially.  To get modules written,
tested & documented actually requires a substantial amout of time for
us old slowpokes.


  -Fred

--
Fred L. Drake, Jr.
fdrake@cnri.reston.va.us
Corporation for National Research Initiatives
1895 Preston White Drive    Reston, VA  20191