Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > >> But, if you still disagree, I recommend that we put it to a vote. > >Well, if it must, fine. I'm -1'ing it for sure. > >Also, I recommend that we only take votes from people who've been >participating in the development say in the last 6 months. I know >there are 10+ "sleeper" committers; having them +1 and having that >count is meaningless, at least to me. > >I'm sure someone'll throw the process book at me now.
Not me. By apache rules, code changes such as these are subject to consensus. 10K +1's don't overrule a single -1 when it comes to consensus. Let me see if I can find some areas where there is likely some agreement: 1) DOM2Writer must always correctly process any well formed as XML as input. 2) It appears to be possible to produce invalid XML using the DOM APIs. 3) DOM2Writer should always produce well formed XML as output - - - Note: 3 is written as a "should". At some point, garbage in will result in garbage out no matter how hard we try. But I personally have no problem following the``Be strict in what you send and lenient in what you accept'' adage. The only issue in my mind is whether the proposed patch could violate rule #1 above and incorrectly process valid XML. If so, it also has my -1. Address that concern, and I'll move to +0. - Sam Ruby
