xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arnaud Le Hors <leh...@us.ibm.com>
Subject What name?
Date Tue, 11 Jul 2000 20:54:13 GMT
[I'm cross posting because having two threads on the two lists is simply
not productive.]

Brett McLaughlin wrote on xerces-j-dev:
> Somewhere in here people went from a new project to Xerces 2.

Stefano started it. See

> James is just trying to do the same: start a new codebase to create the 
> itches to scratch. 
> Is it wrong to give it another codename? probably. 
> Is it wrong to place it in another CVS module? probably. 
> Is it wrong to go off without asking first? probably. 
> So, let me start off another option: 
> 1) we forget about spinnaker 
> 2) we create a new CVS branch under xml-xerces where Xerces2 should 
> reside 
> 3) in case, we create a xerces2-dev mail list 

To which I said: Sounds great!

Now you wrote:

> I don't
> know that everyone is happy with Spinnaker starting out as Xerces 2 - I
> know I am not. I think the right thing is let this thing evolve on its
> own, without any presumptions about its final resting place. Leave room
> for complete reinvention, not just upgrades.

The point is that we are interested in working for the next version of
Xerces. Not just making an experiment. So it's a natural way to call it
Xerces 2. If it's the number you don't like. Fine. Let's call it Xerces
NG (Next Generation). But I really wonder why some of you aren't more
confident in the success of this. Everybody says Xerces is a great
success. Even though we all know and recognize it has defiencies. How
couldn't we do better?? We plan to commit just as much time to this new
version of Xerces than we have commited to Xerces 1. So, having more
experience and help from others, I don't see how we'd fail.

And even if it was a failure after all. Then what? We'd start a new
version. What's the problem??? On the other hand, as I said in another
message moving things in CVS is a major pain. So I'd much rather choose
a place that's independent of its status.
Arnaud  Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group

View raw message