Re: [VOTE]: motion to transform Xerces into a top-level project as a member of the "federation" of XML projects

Berin Lautenbach wrote:
> Note that one does not preclude the other.  The decision as to whether 
> or not to become a TLP should not rest on the charter, although I think 
> it is good to understand how the project is going to run prior to 
> starting :>.

Agreed.

> You'll have to pardon me here - what were the exact issues you had with 
> the charter?  I think there was a piece around top level code base?

Very simply: the draft charter defined Xerces sub-projects
as parser implementations in different languages. And it had
no allowance for sub-projects for a particular parser impl.

I don't see any problem with have a PMC that deals with all
Xerces implementations but still considering the different
implementations "projects" with their own sub-projects. For
example, Xerces-J could have an HTML sub-project with the
HTML DOM implementation and an HTML parser built from the
Xerces framework. But the draft charter was explicit about
defining a sub-project as an XML parser implementation in a
particular language.

-- 
Andy Clark * [email protected]