Subject: Re: XS: Guidelines for the discussion From: lex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alex Milowski) Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 13:24:05 -0500 (CDT) |
> 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
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XS: Guidelines for the discussi, James Clark | Thread | Enhancements for html32hc-1.dcl, Daniel M. German |
Re: XS: Guidelines for the discussi, Alex Milowski | Date | Re: XS: needed features? -- underli, lee |
Month |