At 12:10 PM 11/14/00 +0000, David Grove wrote:

I think these questions have been answered already, but just in case they 
haven't it doesn't hurt to re-iterate.

>Sorry for the crosspost (the information was requested). This is where I
>got the information on the new api groups. I've subscribed to the groups
>but haven't seen any traffic on them yet. I don't see any reason to
>believe that this wouldn't be authentic, but if it is, then if I'm not
>missing some huge discussion somewhere, then somebody's got the cart
>before the horse...

The groups generally are independent of Larry's work, and if it turns out 
that the RFCs they produce need changing when he's done, well, that's OK.

They're started because I want to get *something* done, and they're in the 
area where we don't have to wait for Larry to at least get starte.

>You know anything about this Nat? Nat, this also brings up another issue I
>hadn't foreseen. If one person (Dan, Sarathy, or whoever, not picking on
>anybody) leads so many working groups, how can that work into the fairness
>system that we banged our heads together to eek out? Kudos to Dan for
>(trying to) take on so much, but the wisdom of this is questionable, even
>if he can handle all the work.

I'm in as chair only because I didn't think quite enough to call for 
volunteers first. (I've got something mono-ish--go easy on me :) I'm all 
for changing the chairs, as well as the target date. In fact, an 
announcement to that effect will go out in a bit.

>The frustrating part is that I actually want to participate in the parser
>group. I think I have some to add. The problem is we don't have any
>language definition from Larry yet, so figuring out a parser seems waaaay
>premature. We don't even know what's desired in the core, since we're
>looking toward a minimal core.

The parser group is for the parser *API*, not the parser itself. It's 
supposed to design the calls inside the parser for wedges written in perl 
or C and suchlike things, so when it's done we can start writing a skeleton 
parser piece. The calls won't change much, I think--what token boundaries 
are doesn't matter if we're only defining the format for the function 
that'll be calld when one's seen.

That the language isn't fully defined doesn't mean we can't start parsing 
with perl 5 and go from there, but that's a separate issue for a separate 
group that's not started yet.


--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk

Reply via email to