Dan and all, I have taken some time to consider. Whilst there are many advantages to operating under the auspices of an organisation like Eclipse, I see the following practical problems with that particular one:
1. Eclipse specifications must be under the auspices of a working group, which one? Those listed at https://www.eclipse.org/org/workinggroups/explore.php do not seem appropriate, and creating a new one is an added workload on a limited community of resources. 2. The Eclipse standards process requires an implementation and automated tests, appropriate for the Java related APIs that they mostly standardise, but less so for a markup language. Many of the questions I asked in my previous reply show that defining limited fixed translations is more constraining than encouraging the growth of implementations. And the suggestion that a dumped format for the parsed tree just adds another (otherwise useless) output format implementations must provide. 3. For any contribution to be accepted an ECA must be provided by the contributor. This is understandable for managing contributions from competing corporations that Eclipse normally wrangles, but is an unacceptable impediment to the process of developing the specification for a small community that isn't heavily related to Eclipse. Even if we use github (which I believe we must to get maximum contributions, few Asciidoc users are watching Eclipse projects) the Eclipse github hooks will complain about merging pull requests from contributors without ECAs. However an ECA is a signed document and this is an unacceptable impediment to contribution by many people, especially writers, the actual people we want contributions from. It is inappropriate to place barriers in the way of contribution to the initial specification process. And it is also an issue for the contributions to the TCK. These problems I believe make it unsuitable to develop the specification under Eclipse. However the post by Jaime Tarrasa provides a possible answer, initial development should take place outside the Eclipse foundation, and then it can be made available to the Eclipse formalization process. Or a different organisations should be investigated. Cheers Lex BTW I notice a "News" item on the Eclipse website that points to the Asciidoctor blog item on the specification. As there is not yet any agreement about using that organisation, it is premature for them to be unilaterally posting news articles that suggest its a fait accompli. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
