Re: XS: Guidelines for the discussion

[lex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alex Milowski)]

> >I don't agree.
> >
> >I think we should look at the standard and work from there.  There is nothing
> >like an implementation to sway the design of a standard.  I wouldn't suggest
> >that we use my DSSSL engine for the basis of the standard either.
> >
> >We should not have to say: "Well, this feature is in the standard because
> >it was in implementation X of DSSSL."  We should have a sound reason for
> >adding features.
> 
> Jon didn't suggest that.  He was suggesting looking at each extra feature
> that Jade has implemented and then considering whether there are good
> reasons to add it to XS.

I wasn't implying that he was.  Sorry all.  I just didn't want to fall
into that trap.

> The features I've added to Jade weren't chosen at random.  Often they are
> there because users asked for them, or because they were relatively little
> trouble to add.  Both of these are relevant considerations for whether they
> should be in XS.  Also the fact that it is implemented in Jade means we can
> ask: "Are people in fact using it?", "Have they in fact found it useful?".

This I understand as well.  My point was that we have more than one DSSSL
implementation to serve as a resource.

I believe that we are in agreement on this.

==============================================================================
R. Alexander Milowski     http://www.copsol.com/   alex@xxxxxxxxxx
Copernican Solutions Incorporated                  (612) 379 - 3608

 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist