RE: Provisional Standards was RE: Ada.Networks.Sockets hierarchy(Provisional Standard?)

["Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com>]

At least in the case of XML, we have a mandate to do something. I propose
that we start with a "Birds of a Feather" evening meeting at SIGAda 2003.
Presently, the only questions are do we start a mailing list and establish a
repository? My feeling on the mailing list is, unless our fellow readers of
Comp.Lang.Ada decide that no longer want to see comments on this subject, we
continue to use Comp.Lang.Ada. The repository is a much more complicated
subject, which should be decided upon by those who provide its contents.
Bob Leif

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren W. Gay VE3WWG [mailto:ve3wwg@cogeco.ca] 
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 1:49 PM
To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org

Marin David Condic wrote:
> I think that when discussing libraries - especially something like XML 
> that might be in quite a state of flux over the years - that we need a 
> mechanism different from the ARM. If a "Provisional Standard" committee 
> were to exist under some auspices that had the cooperation of some 
> reasonably large subset of the interested players, they could quickly 
> react to changes in the real world. XML may win or lose as a standard. 
> It might evolve or be "embraced and extended". New technology may emerge 
> that makes it obsolete. In this fast paced technological world, nobody 
> has a crystal ball that can see better than a year in advance. Waiting 
> for the ARM to react is a guarantee of failure.
> 
> SIGAda is a forum that could serve to develop and maintain a 
> "Provisional Standard" library. (Isn't that where ASIS originated?) Or 
> the vendors could form up a research corporation that might even become 
> self-sustaining if it produced a library that could generate revenue in 
> the form of support, updates, etc. (Such a research corporation might 
> even be able to get more developed by volunteers by promising some kind 
> of royalties for contributions that are accepted.) I think the forum 
> could be found and the work accomplished, but it needs some kind of 
> direction and acceptance by the vendors.
> 
> BTW: I agree about the name. If "Provisional Standard" is not 
> acceptable, go call it "Harold" for all that it matters to me. ;-)
> 
> MDC

OK, now that some initial discussion has occurred, is there any further
interest in proceeding with the generation of a "provisional standard"?

If so, what should it be called, and were would you like to host it?

I am going to as SourceForge to remove the project that was set up
for me, since it is now inappropriately named (ada0y-net-std).

I know there is some casual interest, but is there any real interest
in starting a "formal project"?   Or is there an existing one that
people should be "pointed to"?

Warren.


> Robert C. Leif wrote:
> 
>> We already have a group on building Ada APIs for XML. I believe that I am
>> the Chair. I believe that we should minimize the contents of the Ada
>> standard, yet maximize the contents of standardized Ada libraries. The
>> creation and modification of libraries often is a continuous process. For
>> instance, none of us knows what the detailed structure of XML will be 
>> at the
>> end of 5 years. However, we can design a system for creating, what I 
>> would
>> call provisional standards, i.e. a binding for which we have a consensus
>> with the understanding that it may have to be changed in the future.
>>
>> An additional virtue of the use of provisional standards is that they 
>> can be
>> extensively tested by implementation and use prior to their formally 
>> being
>> incorporated into Ada.
>> Parenthetically, I have no strong attachment to the term provisional
>> standard. If there is a better or more precise term, so be it.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg