Hi, On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:23 PM, Andreas Kuckartz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Cridland: >> 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. > > Exactly, and I find those dependencies helpful. > >> 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. > > +1 not necessarily. I would for sure help. I have actually asked many times if the editors and infrastructure operation team needed any help, but none have replied at all. So I am not trying to push more work to the editors or council, I am just trying to reach out and come up with some new ideas to hear if they have any backing. > >>> 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. > > There is no need to change the XEPs in any way. The dependencies can be > collected independently and made available as Linked Open Data using > JSON-LD, RDF or whatever. Yes that might be an idea. > > Cheers, > Andreas
