Re: XS: Guidelines for the discussion

Subject: Re: XS: Guidelines for the discussion
From: James Clark <jjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 11:11:29 +0700
At 17:09 23/05/97 -0500, Alex Milowski wrote:

>> 3. An important implication of this rule is that we can accomplish
>> some good early work by looking at the things currently supported by
>> Jade that are not required by the spec and asking of each one whether
>> it should be.  I would like to suggest this as a place to start.
>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.

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?".


 DSSSList info and archive:

Current Thread