Scott said:
> I would agree if org.w3c.dom.xpath were an existing recommendation, and
> this round was a version that altered existing interfaces. But this API
is
> at Last Call (I think it is there... see
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03/DOM-Level-3-XPath-issues/all.html), and they
want
> to move it to "Candidate Recommendation" status (see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/#About). It makes more sense to me to just use
> org.w3c.dom.xpath, and we want to stress that we are implementing these
> interfaces.
Good point. Since the interfaces are stable, I'm ok with removing the
renamed interfaces and keeping the org.w3c... package name.
> At the time that xml-commons decides that org.w3c.dom.xpath is ready for
> prime time, we delete our copy... should be no big deal.
I think we all agree on this!
So, I am changing my mind, but I am still eager to eliminate duplicates of
these interfaces in XalanJ. So, if anyone has objections to removing
org.apache.xalan.dom3.xpath, please let me know.
Thanks,
Ilene.
------
Scott
Boag/Cambridge/IB To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
M@Lotus cc:
Subject: Re: Do we need the
org.w3c.dom.xpath package?
10/25/2002 10:14
AM
Please respond to
xalan-dev
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does anyone have concerns about the removal of org.w3c.dom.xpath package
> from XalanJ?
I would like to -0 this, or maybe even -1.
Shane Curcuru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Indeed, we should be using re-named ones currently until it's an
> official rec
I would agree if org.w3c.dom.xpath were an existing recommendation, and
this round was a version that altered existing interfaces. But this API is
at Last Call (I think it is there... see
http://www.w3.org/2002/03/DOM-Level-3-XPath-issues/all.html), and they want
to move it to "Candidate Recommendation" status (see
http://www.w3.org/TR/#About). It makes more sense to me to just use
org.w3c.dom.xpath, and we want to stress that we are implementing these
interfaces.
I think you should delete your "copied" interfaces (
org.apache.xalan.dom3.xpath), and use org.w3c.dom.xpath. It will encourage
people to use them, which we very much want. Just include some sort of
disclaimer in the files that will get included in the javadoc, until the
interfaces are at official recommendation status.
> also we should definitely try to move these (interfaces)
> into the xml-commons project when that happens and coordinate with
> other projects who might want to use it, especially Xerces-J.
At the time that xml-commons decides that org.w3c.dom.xpath is ready for
prime time, we delete our copy... should be no big deal.
-scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
10/22/2002 04:52 cc: (bcc: Scott
Boag/Cambridge/IBM)
PM Subject: Re: Do we need the
org.w3c.dom.xpath package?
Please respond to
xalan-dev
Ok. Well, if I don't hear any -1's by Friday, I will go ahead and remove
the org.w3c.dom.xpath package.
Thanks,
Ilene.
Shane Curcuru
<shane_curcuru@ya To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
hoo.com> cc:
Subject: Re: Do we need the
org.w3c.dom.xpath package?
10/22/2002 11:28
AM
Please respond to
xalan-dev
Here's my
+1 vote to remove these files from source.
Indeed, we should be using re-named ones currently until it's an
official rec; also we should definitely try to move these (interfaces)
into the xml-commons project when that happens and coordinate with
other projects who might want to use it, especially Xerces-J.
=====
- Shane
<eof .sig="'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said,
in a very scornful tone, 'it means just what I
choose it to mean - neither more nor less'"
"Oohayu oyod?!"=gis. />
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
