xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ted Leung" <twle...@sauria.com>
Subject Re: xml.apache.org charter proposal
Date Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:27:19 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: <Scott_Boag@lotus.com>
To: <general@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: xml.apache.org charter proposal

> "Ted Leung" <twleung@sauria.com> wrote:
> > In Xerces, the JDOM guys were basically told this, and non-W3C'ness was
> > the hammer that was applied to the nail.
> I don't believe that's true.  JDOM was never rejected.  The folks working
> on it simply didn't want to work on it because they didn't like it.  If
> anyone wants to develop a JDOM constructor for Xerces, I believe they can.
> Don't cry foul just because some people don't like JDOM much.

I refer you to http://archive.covalent.net/xml/xerces-j-dev/2000/09/0170.xml

"> Whether I like JDOM or not has nothing to do with it. It's in our
> mission statement to be based on standards. See
> http://xml.apache.org/mission. I don't think your argument that SAX is
> no more a standard than JDOM holds at all. SAX clearly is a de facto
> standard, I don't think you can find anybody to disagree with that. This
> is clearly not true for JDOM. At least not yet.

The argument wasn't based on dislike.  The standards line was used.

> > I am truly concerned that the W3C has lost the ability to restrain
> > design-by-committee
> > in its process.   All you have to do is look at Schema and XQuery in
> order
> > to see train wrecks in the works.
> Sigh... whether you like Schema and whatever will be XQuery or not doesn't
> mean that the "W3C has lost the ability".  There is a lot of stuff going
> in the W3C, and coordinating this much stuff and trying give everyone what
> they want when they want it is *hard*.  Now, for instance, Trex is very
> cool, but it doesn't give true type inheritence, which I personally think
> is really important.  And XQuery is working very hard with the XSLT WG,
> I think the results are going to be very cool.  Or it could become a train
> wreck, as with any design.  The W3C is not magic, but on the whole I think

> it is doing a pretty darn good job... people don't appreciate the amount
> thought that goes into their specifications.  Like any body of work, some
> specs are better than others.

I'm allowed to be concerned about what's going on at the W3C.  A lot of
are.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is whether or not we want to
constrain ourselves
to only do what W3C approves as recommendations.  Personally, I don't want
to be
constrained that way.


In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

View raw message