On 31/12/2012, at 17.31, Philip Durbin <philipdur...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/30/2012 07:05 PM, Stephen Woodbridge wrote: >> 4. I didn't like the connection to Java either, I see no need for that >> in the spec, if there is some point that they are trying to establish by >> it, it would be better to just spell it out in details so people that do >> not work with Java have direct guidance. > > Right, I thought it was odd to read "the GEDCOM X data model is defined in > Java" at http://www.gedcomx.org/Code.html > > Likewise, http://www.gedcomx.org/Community.html says "The GEDCOM X schemas > and interfaces are defined in Java." > > Thank you, everyone, for the great discussion on GEDCOM X. It seems like > something to keep an eye on.
I think I saw one of the devs (possibly Ryan Heaton @stoicflame) comment on an issue at some point that they were moving away from defining it in terms of Java and rather to have a language-agnostic spec with a reference implementation in Java. I can't find it just now, but in any case, I should think that would be the correct way of dealing with it. And if I'm not misremembering, that should be put on their site in big fat letters. Perhaps I'll open a ticket next year ;) if I don't find where they said it. Happy new years, Mikkel
