Cornelius Schumacher wrote: > Following up on the discussion about freedesktop.org at GCDS and the > additional input on the mailing list, I wrote down a specification for the > process how to manage freedesktop.org specifications. It's based on the > consensus we built at GCDS plus the input which came from Aaron and others > before and after the meetings. > > To bootstrap the process I wrote it down as a freedesktop.org specification > following the proposed process. You can find the text at > http://gitorious.org/~cornelius/xdg-specs/xdg-specs-spec0/blobs/master/specifications/SpecificationProcess/specification.txt > > Please have a look and comment.
# About "### Overall Acceptance States" I am wondering if there should not be a way to represent specifications which may have been declined by one "major" desktop but implemented by the other one and by "minor" desktops. (sorry for the major, minor words, I can't find better terms) # About "## Project Hosting" There is no lack of hosting solutions these days, so I think newly-approved projects should only be hosted there if they are implementing an fd.o spec. This should help reducing confusion. # About "## Appendix A: Specification Meta Data Format" Sometimes implementations are at application level rather than desktop/organization level (for example the thumbnail spec). So I suggest replacing the <organization> element with the more generic <adopter>. I think we should encourage implementations to list themselves as adopters. This helps to have a birds-eye view of the ubiquity of an implementation. The <adopter> element should include contact information for the implementer so that it's easier to gather interested people when there is a need to make the specification evolve. The "specversion" attribute of the <version> element should be mandatory. Aurélien _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
