[XML-SIG] Proposal: PEP-like Approach for pyXML

[Nicolas Chauvat]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Thomas B. Passin wrote:

> Comments, anyone?  Suggestions? Names instead of XRFC? Too
> much work?

I think it's a good idea. I do think it is more work to do, but no group
ever got away writing code collaboratively without maintaining good
documentation (well, not without increasing time and decreasing quality,
that is...).

I think XML is the mandatory format. DocBook/article may do, but=20
http://www.memory.palace.org/authoring/writing-rfcs.html may be more
suited.

I suggest we put a page on the PyXML website with a table for the list of
XRFCs: Name of the RFC. one-liner subect. Dates (creation/update). Status
(to be written, in discussion, closed). Maintainer. on-line html version.
link to ftp site where ps/pdf/text versions are available.

Maintainers will have write access to that part of the repository. On
check-ins, a script will produce the ps/pdf/text versions out of the
updated RFCs and post an announce on the PyXML list. Discussions about the
RFCs would take place on the PyXML list. On each RFC webpage, the
maintainer could add links to the e-mails in the archive discussing the
subject, so that one could easily browse thru previous posts and avoid
repetitions.

I think this would make it much easier to use, develop and contribute
to the PyXML package. Did I forget something?

--=20
Nicolas Chauvat

http://www.logilab.com - "Mais o=F9 est donc Ornicar ?" - LOGILAB, Paris (F=
rance)

PS: I can't help but mention that Narval (www.logilab.org/narval) will
soon help to automate/improve several tasks in the above list.