dIon Gillard wrote: > > I don't see how we can be more accomodating other than downloading, > installing and running our own Gump. From talking to Vincent on that, it's > not a simple process, hence we are relying on the Gump developers to tell > us where we're going wrong.
Look at it from my perspective for a moment. I took initiative. I build a working system. I provided some documentation. I've responded when people have asked for features like the ability to control their own descriptors. I've asked for feedback. I've quickly given commit access to anybody who even expresses the slightest interest and has even some minimal competency. What feedback do I get? > We've chosen to generate a descriptor rather than use namespaces, but other > than that, I can't tell why you're complaining - throw us a bone.... Imagine somebody writing a code generator, never having installed a compiler. Let's be clear - I am not asking anybody sully their hands by actually running Gump, but there must have been a reason why a different DTD was chosen than Gump's. I made an effort to document the Gump data definitions and there certainly is plenty of instance data to look at. Tell me what to change, tell me what's wrong, or simply tell me they suck. All I ask is that you don't continue to ignore this work. Let me be clear: I don't give a rat's behind whether the project definitions are processed using XSLT, DVSL, or C#. But is it too much to ask that somebody showing at least some token interest in converging on the data definitions? - Sam Ruby -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
