On Friday 20 February 2004 05:56, Leo Sutic wrote: > > From: Farr, Aaron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > - A TCK or similar formal spec would be helpful for just > > getting our own containers/components working together. > > Yes, but no one is willing to write it or maintain it. > > I agree that it would be helpful if a TCK materialized from > nothingness and maintained itself, but that's not likely.
I got the impression that LSD is actually aiming at doing exactly that... I think LSD's RT spurred some renewed "self-criticism" of how we go about things here. A big master plan, as /LS points out indirectly, is likely to fail from it shear size. But, I think LSD is also trying to get a "policy agreement" first, which we can easily agree upon, and refer back to in case of "decision paralysis" that we seems to suffer so much. Personally, I would prefer a simple method, whereby we can specify a feature and simple tick boxes of which containers support it. And keep adding as issues are brought up. That is a non-contentious approach. The contentious part is then to classify which ones are 'requirements for compliance', but would help for 3rd Party container developers as well as standard component writers. IMHO, after a large portion of the list has been established, I think we should just go through the list, and place a majority vote on each one, provided that each PMC member can be consistent in their own personal preference (LCD, Merlin-only, Drop-Legacy, or whatever). When new issues are brought up, they are treated in the same manner. Cheers Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
