Front page | perl.bootstrap |
Postings from July 2000
Stephen P. Potter writes:
> IR - "Implementation Request"
> This would be the initial idea, be it that we should get rid of $
> or that we should add native support for HTTP/FTP/whatever to open().
>
> IRD - "Implementation Request for Discussion"
> This would be what the WG returns as their recommendation for
> implementation. It would have whatever level of detail was decided on
> and what options were discussed. This would be fed back to the main
> group/Larry/whoever for open comments and final approval.
>
> IS - "Implementation Standard"
> This is what Larry/Gnat/whoever returns as how the feature should be
> implemented. It is different from the IRD in that it gives the
> definitive answer, it removes the other options. It is what we could
> use to define the tests against.
I've been imagining that an RFC would progress from IR to IRD based on
feedback from the chairs and public ("uh, not really detailed enough
there, Bob"). IS would come once Larry makes his decision on which
things he wants. He'll probably come up with a big list of changes,
some of which we suggested, some of which are based on things we
suggested, and some of which are out of left field.
I was planning on deciding what's needed in an IS once the decisions
are made. Rigorously mapping the future is often a waste of time that
could be spent doing work for the present.
Nat
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next