On 1/19/01 1:20 AM, "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks somewhat familiar, but "Accused of imposing his
> implementation choices on the design specifications for the Ant 2.0
> release" is not exactly what I remember - but then I'm might be too
> involved with this to even come close to an objective view.
Obviously, I'd be too close for an objective view, but yes, I don't see
anything wrong with the phrase "Accused of...". It's a fair statement that
doesn't presume that is what I did, but reflects that I've been accused of a
fair number of things. :)
>> If I have misread Duncan's words, please feel free to tell so either
>> through the "comment" feature we've recently added on xmlhack or by
>> mail.
>
> I think only Duncan could tell you, whether you've misread him - I'm
> not sure, really.
I don't think my words have been misread. I don't find anything wrong with
the article.
--
James Duncan Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!try; do()
