Hi all, Took a little longer than expected due to other commitments, but I've created an issue here: https://github.com/FamilySearch/gedcomx/issues/228
Please comment as you see fit. Mikkel On 31/12/2012, at 22.39, Ron Savage <r...@savage.net.au> wrote: > 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
