dj.adams at pobox.com
Fri Jun 29 04:22:08 CDT 2001
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 12:27:47AM -0500, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> OK, enough philosophizing, let's get to work!
> I've come up with a proposed format for the JEPs, consisting of a small
> extension to DocBook. I've also streamlined somewhat the JEP process
> Your feedback is welcome.
Nice work, stpete.
- wouldn't it be useful to be able to identify what proposal type
a JEP is, by looking at its number? How about a prefix such as
'S', 'J' or 'I' for 'Standards Track', 'JIG' or 'Informational'
- as far as I can make out from (pedantically) reading 0001, here
are the possible statuses per JEP type:
STANDARDS TRACK: proposed|draft|final|deferred|rejected|obsolete
JIG PROPOSAL : proposed|deferred|rejected|obsolete
INFORMATIONAL : proposed|active|deferred|rejected|obsolete
Is this correct?
- reference implementation; I'm assuming this is in tune with the
proto/implementation decoupling initiative and could be in any
language? (/me goes off to learn Haskell or something equally
More information about the Members