Tom Watson wrote:
>
> I already recommended in my +1 response that there should probably be a
> third list. I am also comfortable keeping it with the Xerces-C
> (treating it as a language binding of Xerces C), but it would be less
> confusing and more useful to split it out. I hate to call anoth
I already recommended in my +1 response that there should probably be a
third list. I am also comfortable keeping it with the Xerces-C
(treating it as a language binding of Xerces C), but it would be less
confusing and more useful to split it out. I hate to call another vote
for this. Can we jus
Rahul Jain wrote:
>
> +1
This lead to another problem, where does Xerces-PERL goes ?
A third project? Together with Xerces-C ?
Pier
--
- P I E R -
stable struct
+1
+1 from me on doing the separation.
- Anupam
- Original Message -
From: Ralf Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 12:06 PM
Subject: separate xerces-dev into xerces-c-dev xerces-j-dev (+1)
> Dear xerces-dev community,
>
> I would like
+1 from me as well. We also should have a list for Xerces Perl.
Tom
Andy Clark wrote:
>
> +1
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> And you are sure this cannot be fixed by for example
>
> *Getting people to put [JAVA] or [C] in the Subject
> by gentle peer pressure (or beer bying if you forget)
>
> *mandating [JAVA] or [C] in the Subject by a rule
> in the list server
>
W
Andy Clark wrote:
>
> +1
+1...
I'd suggest we make this a common practice: it's hard that a person is
interested in more than a project using different languages... I
admittedly skip over all the C-related messages and this is just waste
of bandwidth for all of us.
my 0.02 euros (which are almo
It might seem stupid... But to have a "cleaner" setup, I propose this:
We separate [EMAIL PROTECTED] in:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also, so "mirror" the thing, we should separate the CVS module in
xml-xercesj
and
xml-xercesc
(Do you see the simmetry???). At the end, any pro
+1
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: separate xerces-dev into xerces-c-dev xerces-j-dev
> We do have the "General" list already...
>
> Mike
>
> "Arnold, Curt" wrote:
> >
> &g
+1
I would like to support below, if possible, though I have still
remained as a subscriber, or a "code reader".
currentNumber++ ;
currentNumber++ ; // For my other address at home.
"Arnold, Curt" wrote:
> I think that it would still be good to have a home
Oh, yes, a +1 from me, too.
Mike
Ralf Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> Dear xerces-dev community,
>
> I would like to get a quorum of (+1) responses to separate out the
> xerces-dev group into xerces-c-dev, and xerces-j-dev.
>
> We developers of Xerces-J and Xerces-C are having a lot of difficulties
> inte
We do have the "General" list already...
Mike
"Arnold, Curt" wrote:
>
> I think that it would still be good to have a home for "generic" Xerces
> discussion. Otherwise, if you have something that is generic, you would
> probably cross-post it and many people would get it
> twice. Or you woul
From: Arnold, Curt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> you would have a very useful discussion on something in Xerces-J and
Xerces-C people would not see it.
> So, how about keeping xerces-dev, but creating new mailing lists
xerces-c-dev and xerces-j-dev?
I like thing the way they are. But two or three mailing
I think that it would still be good to have a home for "generic" Xerces
discussion. Otherwise, if you have something that is generic, you would
probably cross-post it and many people would get it
twice. Or you would have a very useful discussion on something in Xerces-J and
Xerces-C people wou
I feel the splitting is more appropriate as I don't want to see java
discussions piling my mail-box while I'm focussing on c alone. And the new
entrants who wouldn't be aware of the proposed syntax of j/c indication will
again cause the same confusion
So, please lets get going on this.
Arundhati
++1;
Arundhati
Ralf Pfeiffer wrote:
> Dear xerces-dev community,
>
> I would like to get a quorum of (+1) responses to separate out the
> xerces-dev group into xerces-c-dev, and xerces-j-dev.
>
> We developers of Xerces-J and Xerces-C are having a lot of difficulties
> interpreting the email, and
+1 from me and I just joined this merry bunch yesterday... that is if my
vote counts...
Linda Derezinski
Sr. Software Engineer
Interface & Control Systems
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Voice: (410) 290-7600
8945 Guilford Rd. Suite 120 Fax: (410) 290-773
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 3 February 2000 11:31
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: separate xerces-dev into xerces-c-dev xerces-j-dev (+1)
+1 from me.
Dave
Ralf Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 02/02/2000 03:06:33 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc:
+1 from me.
Dave
Ralf Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 02/02/2000 03:06:33 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:(bcc: David N Bertoni/CAM/Lotus)
Subject: separate xerces-dev into xerces-c-dev xerces-j-dev (+1)
Dear xerces-dev community,
I would like to
Ralf Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> Dear xerces-dev community,
>
> I would like to get a quorum of (+1) responses to separate out the
> xerces-dev group into xerces-c-dev, and xerces-j-dev.
>
> We developers of Xerces-J and Xerces-C are having a lot of difficulties
> interpreting the email, and questions i
+10. Does this mean I can't +1 the next 9 things?
Dean Roddey
Software Weenie
IBM Center for Java Technology - Silicon Valley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ralf Pfeiffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 02/02/2000 12:06:33 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EM
Ralf Pfeiffer wrote:
>
> Dear xerces-dev community,
>
> I would like to get a quorum of (+1) responses to separate out the
> xerces-dev group into xerces-c-dev, and xerces-j-dev.
>
> We developers of Xerces-J and Xerces-C are having a lot of difficulties
> interpreting the email, and questions
25 matches
Mail list logo
