> Well, there is a difference, at least philosophically, between bugs and > deliberate non-conformance.
There's a similarity when the "solution" becomes hacking schemas to get things to work. That way lies madness, same as this. > I'm not a committer on the project, but I suspect it's just an issue of > resources. Bugs, after all, don't fix themselves -- they require human > intervention. Of course, but getting a sense as to whether the schema support is on the critical list is important in choosing what to do. One bug begets another. I'm well aware that nobody validates, I've been told that enough. So the question is, can I realistically continue to? Should I? > Since the code is there > for you, why not dive in and try to fix a few of them? I'm sure your > contributions will be welcome. Believe me, I've tried. It's not like one can digest the validator without serious effort, and I'm busy writing my own projects too. Nobody can expect to fix all the bugs in all the libraries they use, obviously, so getting a sense as to whether that's my only way forward is important; if that's my choice, I'll have to weigh the time I can spend. As I noted in my other response, one of the bugs I hit *has* a fix proposed. Anyway, the point was that the talk about a new release made me wonder if a certain set of bugs are just "not on the radar screen", which is why I asked. Somebody else asked a couple of weeks back about similar bugs and got no answer, so I had sort of taken that for an answer. It's not a big deal per se if there just aren't enough people using that code to justify the resources to fix it vs. other things, but it's important as a user to know. -- Scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
