Re: tolog for TMQL
Lars Marius Garshol <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xtm.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
* Rani Pinchuk > > Taking Tolog as a standard was on the table for very long time now (more than 6 years!), and it did not happen. That's not an argument. > I personally oppose to that from various reasons - but the main one is that it will be as difficult to "Take tolog 1.2 as basis", and introduce all kind of changes... I don't think it would be hard, personally. Basically, it should be possible to just sit down and write the draft without further ado. > and I cannot see how that modified Tolog will be able to compete with a language based on what Robert Barta has to offer in his draft. That's the catch, and the reason I didn't propose this before. I think the current TMQL will be better than tolog once it is finished. > On the other hand, we do have a deadline for the next draft - June-2011 (a bit more than 2 months from now). And we do plan to implement the language while we standardize it - in order to check that we do not standardize something that cannot be implemented. So I think the process will go a bit faster than you may expect. If we really can have a fairly complete and stable draft by June then I think this route is the best one. If not, then I think the other Lars (and Geir Ove, and Kal, and Graham) are right, and that going with tolog is the best option. I've tried to stay out of this discussion because I'm obviously not objective, but I figure that now that you're the person at the helm, and not me, I can at least state my opinion. --Lars M. http://www.garshol.priv.no/tmphoto/ http://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/