> Lenny raises one of two important questions, in my mind: if the current > IDOM* classes are going to be renamed DOM*, what chould the current DOM* > classes be named?
I didn't plan to rename the old DOM, as the old DOM are named as DOM_XXXX (e.g. DOM_Node), while the IDOM is planned to be renamed to DOMXXXX (e.g. DOMNode). So theoretically there is no conflict and should be able to coexist. As majority of the users are still using the old DOM, I don't want to break them with any rename. > The second question: does a change of this magnitude warrant treating this > as a major revision and bumping the version to 2.0? I don't have any problem to bump to version 2.0. But since Xerces-J has redesignd their architecture and introduced the idea of XNI and pluggable pipeline in version 2 of Xerces-J. I am afraid if we bump to version 2.0, users may be confused and think we have port such idea over. Tinny --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
