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 Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: > 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 in this group. Many of us have > > answered a question and found out it was regarding the "other" parser. > > > > I think this division would provide immediate context for the > > the discussions and questions. > > > > Can I get a bunch of (+1) votes from the committers? > > 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 > > Alternatively, if we would set up those two lists 'virtual' and we > would make sure that all messages are crossposted; but WITH some > extra text in the header/footer or subject saying [j] [c] or whatever > which stands out clearly ? > > I am not against splitting lists per-se. Just seeing if you think > it is really nessasry to split the forum. > > DW
