Re: XML idea

[Alex Perez]

> I believe the issue of  getting the copyright assigned was looked into 
> and there were idealogical reasons for the copyright holders not doing 
> it.
Some consideration ought to be given to moving sort of stuff elsewhere, 
then. We do not require copyright assignments in PortabilityKit, for 
instance.

> I really don't think you can produce a definitive statement on new 
> MacOS-X features ... they keep changing.
Exactly, and this is what PortabilityKit is for.
> Some we might want to incorporate directly into the base library 
> (probably most changes to existing classes
Yes, this is what I think would be the best plan, assuming there aren't
huge objections.
> and new classes we think are really well designed), others we might put 
> in the additions library for compatibility
> but not treat as 'core'.
This is misguided. You either support if or you don't. I'd rather see the 
code end up in PortabilityKit than in some unsupported or 
semi-quasi-supported part of GNUstep.
> In other words, I think that if/when we get contributions of MacOS-X 
> classes we don't particularly like, we could
> put them in the additions library, and document them as unsupported or 
> semi-supported ... meaning that the
> core developers would give low priority to their support.
....See above. Why accept implementations of things you aren't going 
to/dont want to support? There's no point.