On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Steffen Larsen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Sounds like a pretty good idea. It could also help people to find > related XEPs, e.g. all the XEPs relating to PubSub like 60, 248, 253, 163, > etc. > > Yes exactly what I am thinking. > > We have, I think, dependency information in XEPs. We could in principle build reverse dependencies, too. That won't achieve everything you want, but it might achieve some of it. > > > > Who would maintain the taxonomy on this. I guess it would be added to as > new XEPs are produced (or existing ones are edited). It would then be part > of the approval process of a ProtoXEP to check that the tags are sensible. > > yes sounds reasonable. > > You're imposing more work on the XEP Editor, and the Council. I'm not in favour of anything which increases their workloads without a known corresponding gain. That's not to say I think this is a terrible idea, I'm just saying it's speculative, and needs to be worked on outside the main standards process workflow at least to begin with. > > > > -- > > Ash > > Right now all the XEPs are files in a repo, so I don't know how we do this > tagging and relavance index the smartest way. > > I think someone (you?) clones the repo and tries out some ideas. Dave.
