[XML-SIG] Proposal: PEP-like Approach for pyXML

Thomas B. Passin tpassin@home.com
Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:40:08 -0500

I've noticed several times lately that people have not been
able to remember or find the state of agreements on
code/API/packaging and so forth.  This certainly applies t0
me.  It's easy for bugs and documentation errors to creep in
this way, and it causes everyone to spend more time than
they would like trying to track down and unify all the
various postings on a subject.

The Python main development process now uses PEPs, similar,
they say,  to RFCs.  I'd like to suggest that pyXML start
using some less formal version.  Perhaps XRFCs (XML RFC)?  I
say less formal because there are fewer people working on
pyXM than on Python itself, and so it's probably more of a
burden to have an individual take on the entire role of
sheparding and advocating an XRFC, as the PEP process is
said to work.

If there were a place in SourceForge, maybe a branch of the
CVS tree, XRFCs could be placed there.  From time to time
they could be updated, and they would always be available as
a record of the discussions and results.

Once an issue were closed out, that XRFC would be frozen,
just as RFCs are.  The PEP distinction of action vs
informational PEPs might work out very well.

We could try out the process by making the first XRFC cover
the topic of XRFC procedures.  Some issues are who keeps an
XRFC up-to-date, what should be included, and who votes on

PEPs are supposed to be written in some kind of structured
text, which is programatically converted to HTML.  Should we
take this as a challenge to do the same in XML for XRFCs?

Comments, anyone?  Suggestions? Names instead of XRFC? Too
much work?


Tom Passin