Hi Mikkel
On 01/01/13 03:45, Mikkel Eide Eriksen wrote:
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.
Yes, open a ticket, politely but firmly reminding them that a
Java-centric view of the world is not the only possible view...
Happy New Year!
And here's hoping this year is even more productive that the last, which
for me at least, was very productive :-).
--
Ron Savage
http://savage.net.au/
Ph: 0421 920 622
