> I can guarantee you that if that is going to be the attitude of the > development team, for what are very popular platforms (mostly, any > platform with ICU), then this project will likely lose a large portion > of its' user base.
I'm not on the development team. I'm just an upstream consumer who believes that 3.0 should not be beholden to exception cases. I suspect that the definition of exception case is "whatever I don't need", the same as any other project. If ICU is "very popular" it's certainly news to me, but if that's a dealbreaker than we should track it as such, shouldn't we? > If Xerces wants to stop claiming to support ICU, I > suppose that's a way out of this as well, but that will certainly > drive me to some other solution. I know nothing about ICU, but I'll repeat my earlier statement: is this problem in Jira? If not, I have little or no sympathy. If so, people with ICU expertise should be looking at it; if we have no such contributors, then how on earth can we support ICU? Isn't that common sense? > As it is, the new Intel XML > libraries are looking awfully tempting for win32 and x86-linux, given > their performance and support, and the 3.0 release discussion > certainly isn't convincing me to stay with Xerces. We have to be realistic. I don't see how pretending we have the ability to support things we can't support helps anybody. The project isn't static; something that was supportable may become unsupportable if the resources simply aren't there anymore. I'll repeat: poor support is much worse than none. If the project can't deliver what you need, it helps nobody to pretend that it can. -- Scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
