Re: XS: Guidelines for the discussion

[lex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alex Milowski)]

> I agree that Jade (and myself) shouldn't have any special status in the
> process.  But I also don't think there should be anything in the XS spec
> that isn't implemented in at least one implementation (preferably several)
> that is:
> 
> - publicly available (preferably with source)
> 
> - reasonably close to production quality in terms of performance (ie an
> implementation that  is unacceptably slow shouldn't count).
> 
> While it's under development, I think the XS spec can move ahead of
> implementation, but I would be very uncomfortable if, when it is finalized,
> there is anything unimplemented in it.

Yes, absolutely.  I think we have enough DSSSL implementationg working or
in the works such that we can *explicitly* state this as part of our
process.

> I can make a good guess about how hard something will be to implement, but
> without actually implementing it I can't be sure.  The only way to be really
> sure of ironing out all the bugs in a spec is to have it be implemented and
> used.

Yes, again, I agree.

As an aside, our DSSSL implementation is finally ready for a "beta" 
distribution.  We will have this ready very soon (early June).

==============================================================================
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