Re: Thoughts on CJAN

2004-03-18 Thread Patrick Chanezon
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: On Mar 16, 2004, at 10:08 PM, Mark R. Diggory wrote: On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 15:02, Alex Karasulu wrote: So really, who cares about CJAN. The spec that goes defacto is the one manifest in the mechanism used by the most people. Unless of course SUN steps in at some point

Re: Thoughts on CJAN

2004-03-17 Thread Dirk-Willem van Gulik
On Mar 16, 2004, at 10:08 PM, Mark R. Diggory wrote: On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 15:02, Alex Karasulu wrote: So really, who cares about CJAN. The spec that goes defacto is the one manifest in the mechanism used by the most people. Unless of course SUN steps in at some point and tries to propose a JSR w

Re: Thoughts on CJAN

2004-03-17 Thread Nicola Ken Barozzi
Mark R. Diggory wrote: On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 14:41, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Mark R. Diggory wrote: ... We should seriously consider establishing a "standards" community to establish supporting efforts such as this. This list is our "standards" community. While trying to maintain a tone of fairn

RE: Thoughts on CJAN

2004-03-16 Thread Mark R. Diggory
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 17:20, Jason van Zyl wrote: > On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 16:12, Mark R. Diggory wrote: > > > However, by following a similar line of reasoning you could take for an > > analogy that IE is the predominate browser on the market, so what ever > > it defines as a DOM model or CSS impl

RE: Thoughts on CJAN

2004-03-16 Thread Jason van Zyl
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 16:12, Mark R. Diggory wrote: > However, by following a similar line of reasoning you could take for an > analogy that IE is the predominate browser on the market, so what ever > it defines as a DOM model or CSS implementation would be the standard, > but yet, we all know thi

RE: Thoughts on CJAN

2004-03-16 Thread Mark R. Diggory
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 14:41, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > Mark R. Diggory wrote: > ... > > We should seriously consider establishing a "standards" community > > to establish supporting efforts such as this. > > This list is our "standards" community. While trying to maintain a tone of fairness I

RE: Thoughts on CJAN

2004-03-16 Thread Mark R. Diggory
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 15:02, Alex Karasulu wrote: > > So really, who cares about CJAN. The spec that goes defacto is the one > > manifest in the mechanism used by the most people. Unless of course SUN > > steps in at some point and tries to propose a JSR which wouldn't > > surprise me at all. > >

RE: Thoughts on CJAN

2004-03-16 Thread Alex Karasulu
> So really, who cares about CJAN. The spec that goes defacto is the one > manifest in the mechanism used by the most people. Unless of course SUN > steps in at some point and tries to propose a JSR which wouldn't > surprise me at all. It's such an undertaking that it might be good to have a JSR a

Re: Thoughts on CJAN

2004-03-16 Thread Nicola Ken Barozzi
Mark R. Diggory wrote: ... We should seriously consider establishing a "standards" community to establish supporting efforts such as this. This list is our "standards" community. CJAN been hard at work with alot of "documentation effort". What are individuals thoughts on this project and its model?

RE: Thoughts on CJAN

2004-03-16 Thread Jason van Zyl
On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 13:20, Alex Karasulu wrote: > I looked through the documentation and the proposals really are not > much. They're one pager brain dumps of nice to haves and standards that > are to be followed. There really is not much to cjan.org at this point > besides the web façade and

RE: Thoughts on CJAN

2004-03-16 Thread Alex Karasulu
Hi, > -Original Message- > From: Mark R. Diggory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > When we talk about distributed Maven repositories, ASF repositories etc > that are related to "Java". I think we should consider that CPAN/CRAN > etc are models of distributing such content that have been successf