Re: Proposed addition to Charter

[Sam Ruby <rubys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny Ayers wrote:
> I can't see much of a downside - Tim suggests that it might slow down 
> the whole effort, but I really don't think any significant delays would 
> be associated with this, it can happen in a separate processing thread. 
> There is plenty of expertise available here and nearby, and less 
> potential for disagreement given that the schema would be derived 
> directly from the spec prose.

I for one don't have a problem with the work being done (presuming that 
there are volunteers), or with the inclusion of transforms or other 
mappings into the final document.

The sticky point to me is putting it in the charter, making it a gating 
deliverable.

FWIW, I feel the same way about schemas (xml, RelaxNG, or others).

On the plus side, such work increases rigor and sometimes exposes 
questions which were not obvious otherwise.  The potential down side is 
when recommendations come in to make compromises in order to make the 
mapping easier.

- Sam Ruby