> Dan wrote: > What the Eclipse Foundation provides is a framework and a guiding hand.
That was too hand-wavy. The Eclipse Foundation provides more than that. It provides a framework (specification process), governance, infrastructure, supervision, mediation, legal counsel, and generally a vendor- and corporate-neutral space to operate. These are all things we will need to be successful in our pursuit, which is exactly the outcome the Eclipse Foundation wants for us. Best, -Dan On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 6:55 PM Dan Allen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Grant wrote: > > Somebody is now trying to write a formal specification. > > Hi, that's me, Dan Allen. You don't have to talk about me like I'm not in > the room. I'm right here. > > That someone is trying to initiate the effort to produce a formal > specification. I'm not doing it all by myself (though I will certainly be > contributing). > > > Those people are from the asciidoctor project and don't work on the > original implementation. > > I've been involved in both AsciiDoc Python and Asciidoctor for many, many > years. I was around when Stuart was still working on it. And I have > contributed to AsciiDoc Python when it was more active. Even though I > implemented the successor to AsciiDoc Python (and now leading > implementation), I've stuck around to help maintain this implementation and > keep the communities connected. So "those people" are these people. We're > all pushing the AsciiDoc language forward. There's no disconnect. > > > I would guess they read the asciidoctor list more regularly than they do > 'this' list (which is mostly about the original implementation). > > Again, I'm here. > > > That's why I suggested that the asciidoctor list would probably be a > better forum. > > We do need a forum for the AsciiDoc language, and that's something that > the infrastructure around the spec will provide. We will have a place to > talk about the language without it getting mixed up with the > implementation. I think that will bring the communities as a whole closer > together. > > > Or the Eclipse Foundation just won't accept contributuions from > individuals? > > Please don't speculate before reading the documents. You can find the > general document about the Eclipse Foundation Specification Process here: > https://www.eclipse.org/projects/efsp/. We also linked to blog entries > that explain it in more depth in the original post: > https://asciidoctor.org/news/2019/01/07/asciidoc-spec-proposal/. > > The AsciiDoc specification will have its own charter (which the working > group has to ratify before anything else can happen, so nothing will be > pre-decided). That charter can stipulate rules and exceptions of its own. > What the Eclipse Foundation provides is a framework and a guiding hand. > > Best, > > -Dan > > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 8:40 AM Grant Edwards <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On 2019-10-27, Jaime Tarrasa <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I may me be wrong, but what I see now it is that we may have an >> original >> > implementation of a markup language not clearly defined and a >> derivative >> > work, asciidoctor, that studying the manual of the original >> implementation >> > has implemented and extends the original and fuzzy markup language. >> >> Yes, that's correct. The original developer of the Python asciidoc >> implementation has moved on. Others spend some time maintaining the >> original implementation, but AFAICT it's not really under active >> development. >> >> Somebody is now trying to write a formal specification. Those people >> are from the asciidoctor project and don't work on the original >> implementation. I would guess they read the asciidoctor list more >> regularly than they do 'this' list (which is mostly about the original >> implementation). That's why I suggested that the asciidoctor list >> would probably be a better forum. >> >> > That could end in the worst scenery for a standard format: Two >> implementations >> > competing to rule the standard. And obviously, never a third >> implementation. >> >> I've seen no evidence that anybody is "competing to rule the standard". >> >> > Do you see what is the problem?. The question is how long have been >> those >> > nuances there. How all those nuances have been solved so far without a >> > reference specification: Each implementation took his way. >> >> Yes, everybody sees the problem. We're all aware of the divergence of >> the two implementations. That's why people are trying to write a >> spec. >> >> -- >> Grant >> >> -- >> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/asciidoc/qp4hlt%244vft%241%40blaine.gmane.org >> . >> > > > -- > Dan Allen | @mojavelinux | https://twitter.com/mojavelinux > -- Dan Allen | @mojavelinux | https://twitter.com/mojavelinux -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/asciidoc/CAKeHnO6M9GnqFXkBfoL8X-9Dsp7SeUEPFLbQODd5M7xDJjMopA%40mail.gmail.com.
