[slf4j-dev] W3C process and parallels to slf4j

[robert burrell donkin]

thanks. that's interesting :) 

i've been coming round to be idea that really what's needed is not
another implementation at all but a recommendation or specification.
implementations would then be free to adopt whatever particular strategy
they pleased.  

sounds like we have a consensus on the starting point: finding some sort
of consensus about our goals then leading onto some sort of requirements
document. looks like we need to revisit the mission thread...

- robert

On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 04:23 -0500, Curt Arnold wrote:
> Since SAX was brought up, I thought I might pass along some links to a 
> more formal process that might be applicable to the type of situation 
> that confronts SLF4J.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/activities.html#Activities	
> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/tr.html#Reports
> 
> Here is a crude overview:
> 
> A W3C Activity is roughly equivalent to something like the ASF Logging 
> Services project.
> 
> An interest Group (IG) within the activity is community of members with 
> an interest in some area, kind of like log4j-users at logging.apache.org 
> representing a community of users with an interest in logging services 
> for Java.
> 
> If the interest group decides that something needs work, it charters a 
> working group.  This would be like the log4j-user's group deciding that 
> there needs to be a log4j 1.3 with certain features and it charters the 
> log4j 1.3 developer group.
> 
> The Working Group (WG) creates a Requirements Document, Working Drafts, 
> Proposed Recommendations, et al.  The requirements for transition 
> between the levels are described in the #Reports link.  One of the 
> crucial points is that recommendations require multiple independent 
> interoperable implementations before progressing to recommendation to 
> prove that the spec is implementable and sufficiently complete.  
> Working Group may provide software for conformance testing.  
> Implementations are usually done by teams within the member companies.
> 
> The W3C doesn't create standards, its most binding document is a 
> recommendation which is basically making a statement like "If you want 
> to display hyperlinked documents, we recommend using HTML and here is 
> its definition but you are free to ignore our recommendation and use 
> anything else you'd prefer"
> 
> Members can submit Notes of existing implementations that could be used 
> as starting points.  For example, Adobe submitted a PGML (portable 
> graphics markup language) and Microsoft submitted Vector Markup 
> Language as Technical Notes to the W3C Graphics Activity and the SVG 
> Working Group used them as references to create SVG Requirements and 
> Working Drafts.  The XML Schema WG collected 5 or so previous efforts 
> before starting the XML Schema work.  Basically, the idea is that W3C 
> development (as opposed to research) should be reserved for 
> technologies that are sufficiently important that more than one company 
> has worked on the problem independently and mature enough that they 
> have been able to get something to work.
> 
> SLF4J.org seems to be a combination activity (Logging), Interest Group 
> (Unified API) and Working Group (SLF4J 1.0 WG).  In a W3C world, these 
> would each have their own charter:  See http://www.w3.org/XML/Activity 
> for an example of an Activity Statement and discussion of the XML 
> Working Groups.
> 
> JCL and UGLI would be similar to Member Notes containing Jakarta 
> Commons and Log4j's efforts on the same problem domain (similar to 
> Adobe's PGML and Microsoft's VML) that could serve as references for 
> the SLF4J WG.  The SLF4J use-case/requirements documents might contain 
> a review off how JCL or UGLI does or does not fulfill the requirements 
> in the document.  The requirements docs would likely go through several 
> iterations before being accepted by the WG or IG.  The WG would then 
> start working to create something that fulfilled the agreed 
> requirements and produce Working Drafts at a periodic interval for 
> review and finally work through the requirements to reach a 
> Recommendation status.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at slf4j.org
> http://slf4j.org/mailman/listinfo/dev