[Standards-JIG] proto-JEP: SVG Whiteboarding

[Boyd Fletcher]

On 8/24/06 1:54 PM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:

> Boyd Fletcher wrote:
> 
>>> I haven't been following this, perhaps, as carefully as I should but
>>> to me, at the moment, the differences do not seem inconsolidatable
>>> (no, that's probably not a word). If at all possible, I would much
>>> rather see modifications proposed than a new, divergent protocol. I
>>> do agree wtith several of the points raised by both participants.
>>> 
>>> /K
>> 
>> ok. then let's make ours the starting point instead?
> 
> Whatever the starting point is, as long as we end up somewhere that
> works, all is well. Just because something is published as a JEP doesn't
> mean it's the final word by any stretch of the imagination. It's just a
> beginning. But I note that publishing at least someone's approach (or
> even just talking about doing so!) has already brought out some opinions
> and discussion, which is what we're here for (well, that and reaching
> consensus on a technically strong solution).
> 
> Naturally, you are free to submit an XML file that documents your
> approach, as specified here:
> 
> http://www.jabber.org/jeps/submit.shtml
> 
> But the Council may remand your proposal and tell you to work out your
> differences with the authors of the other spec. Or it may remand both
> proposals and not accept a document for publishing until (some of) the
> differences are worked out.

thus the reason for a committee to resolve issues first. I find it
surprising that the committee approach works for W3, IETF, IEEE, ISO, ANSI,
etc... but the JSF finds them to problem.

> 
>> or what about the
>> inkscape guys version?
> 
> I believe the Inkscape folks are using something close to the approach
> in the proposed document, but they can chime in.
> 
>> the point I'm trying to make is at this point is way
>> too premature to publish even a draft when the three main groups of people
>> doing whiteboarding over XMPP don't agree on some fundamental things.
> 
> So we discuss the issues and reach consensus. That's how standardization
> efforts work, in my experience. :-)
> 
> Peter