On Monday 01 December 2008, Rodney Dawes wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 20:09 +0100, Jakob Petsovits wrote: > > Although, didn't someone propose a distinction between specifications > > that have generally been agreed upon, and specifications that have not? > > The "Specifications" wiki page should have that already, listing the > specifications in such groupings.
... and still not doing so in an actually useful manner to somone on the outside, such as: * what qualified that spec for greater acceptance * what point in time that spec was so blessed * what versions of which software can be relied on to support such things * and no transparent process for this to occur i've been talking with the kind folk at the Linux Foundation with regards to possible ways to get things moving so that: * we can improve the above issues * we can integrate our information with their fledgling LDN initiative * we can build a realistic path towards LSB adoption of relevant and meanginful specs they are willing and able to: * host a repository for this metadata * help us define and manage the process * bring in expertise to help with the making-specs-standards-for-things-like- LSB task i didn't want to say anything and get people all excited until we at least had the repository to show, but since this topic keep coming up and i don't think it's useful to rehash it yet again, i figured i'd let the cat at least peak outside the bag ;) CC'ing Brian @ LF ... -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg