You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to j-dev@xerces.apache.org by Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com> on 2000/07/30 00:48:21 UTC
[VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
In between versions of the requirements document, Ed and I
changed the name from Xerces2 requirements to XRI requirements.
It has been pointed out to me that we never reached consensus on
the name.
In order to make some progress on this issue, I would like to have
a vote on the usage of Xerces2 vs XRI. Until that vote concludes,
I will put both names back into the next version of the document.
I would like to suggest that we allow for one week for people to
express their opinions and cast their vote. I don't really see the
point of dragging this out.
Ted
Re: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
Posted by Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>.
In case there was any question, I see more than the 3 required +1's
for Xerces2, no -1's, and a +1 for XRI. Xerces2 it is. Ed has already
updated the requirements doc.
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Leung
To: xerces-j-dev@xml.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2000 3:48 PM
Subject: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
In between versions of the requirements document, Ed and I
changed the name from Xerces2 requirements to XRI requirements.
It has been pointed out to me that we never reached consensus on
the name.
In order to make some progress on this issue, I would like to have
a vote on the usage of Xerces2 vs XRI. Until that vote concludes,
I will put both names back into the next version of the document.
I would like to suggest that we allow for one week for people to
express their opinions and cast their vote. I don't really see the
point of dragging this out.
Ted
Re: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
Posted by Andy Heninger <an...@jtcsv.com>.
In order to make some progress on this issue, I would like to have
a vote on the usage of Xerces2 vs XRI. Until that vote concludes,
I will put both names back into the next version of the document.
+1 for Xerces2. I think that keeping the Xerces name helps
emphasize that the redesign of the architecture is something
that everyone involved with the Xerces project wants and supports.
Andy Heninger
IBM XML Technology Group, Cupertino, CA
heninger@us.ibm.com
Re: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
Posted by Arnaud Le Hors <le...@us.ibm.com>.
+1 for Xerces2
--
Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
Re: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
Posted by Andy Clark <an...@apache.org>.
> Ted Leung wrote:
> In order to make some progress on this issue, I would like to have
> a vote on the usage of Xerces2 vs XRI. Until that vote concludes,
> I will put both names back into the next version of the document.
Xerces 2: +1
--
Andy Clark * IBM, JTC - Silicon Valley * andyc@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
Posted by Eric Ye <er...@locus.apache.org>.
Xerces2. because it is a new generation (or redesign, or refactoring ) of Xerces-J Parser.
_____
Eric Ye * IBM, JTC - Silicon Valley * ericye@locus.apache.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Leung
To: xerces-j-dev@xml.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2000 3:48 PM
Subject: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
In between versions of the requirements document, Ed and I
changed the name from Xerces2 requirements to XRI requirements.
It has been pointed out to me that we never reached consensus on
the name.
In order to make some progress on this issue, I would like to have
a vote on the usage of Xerces2 vs XRI. Until that vote concludes,
I will put both names back into the next version of the document.
I would like to suggest that we allow for one week for people to
express their opinions and cast their vote. I don't really see the
point of dragging this out.
Ted
Re: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
Posted by Ted Leung <tw...@sauria.com>.
I'm +1 on XRI. This is not a -1 on Xerces 2. Consider it a -0
on Xerces2.
Heres why:
1) It's not clear to me what the outcome of this little experiment
will be, and I don't want to commit to something that will fizzle out.
By saying Xerces 2 we are making a commitment, that I am
not prepared to make. I want some time to experiment. I don't want
to be committed for a version numbered release. I want the freedom
to throw all the results of this effort away if they don't work out. To
me, that's not Xerces 2.
2) There's already a xerces_2 branch in CVS, which was initiated
independently of the current requirements effort. I don't want to
stop the work on that branch while we work out a new set of
requirements. This is Xerces 2.
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Duncan Davidson" <du...@x180.com>
To: <xe...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
> on 8/1/00 5:56 PM, Andy Clark at andyc@apache.org wrote:
>
> > James Duncan Davidson wrote:
> >> XRI -- it contains the xerces name, and *doesn't* contain a
> >> version number. It'll be ready when it's ready and then it can
> >> get a number.
> >
> > True but code names have a way of creeping into the code. Plus,
> > we'll stay in line with the Xalan folks. Their redesign is
> > Xalan 2 (not XRI: Xalan Refactoring Initiative ;).
>
> Well, I'm definitly outnumbered here, so for the sake of just getting on
> with it, I'll moderate to -0 (with comment) and just go with it.
>
> .duncan
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-j-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-j-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.com>.
on 8/1/00 5:56 PM, Andy Clark at andyc@apache.org wrote:
> James Duncan Davidson wrote:
>> XRI -- it contains the xerces name, and *doesn't* contain a
>> version number. It'll be ready when it's ready and then it can
>> get a number.
>
> True but code names have a way of creeping into the code. Plus,
> we'll stay in line with the Xalan folks. Their redesign is
> Xalan 2 (not XRI: Xalan Refactoring Initiative ;).
Well, I'm definitly outnumbered here, so for the sake of just getting on
with it, I'll moderate to -0 (with comment) and just go with it.
.duncan
Re: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
Posted by Andy Clark <an...@apache.org>.
James Duncan Davidson wrote:
> XRI -- it contains the xerces name, and *doesn't* contain a
> version number. It'll be ready when it's ready and then it can
> get a number.
True but code names have a way of creeping into the code. Plus,
we'll stay in line with the Xalan folks. Their redesign is
Xalan 2 (not XRI: Xalan Refactoring Initiative ;).
--
Andy Clark * IBM, JTC - Silicon Valley * andyc@apache.org
Re: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.com>.
on 7/29/00 3:48 PM, Ted Leung at twleung@sauria.com wrote:
> In order to make some progress on this issue, I would like to have a vote on
> the usage of Xerces2 vs XRI. Until that vote concludes, I will put both names
> back into the next version of the document.
XRI -- it contains the xerces name, and *doesn't* contain a version number.
It'll be ready when it's ready and then it can get a number.
.duncan
RE: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
Posted by Nick Sullivan <ni...@bikestore.com>.
Xerces 2 should be a lot less confusing,
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Leung [mailto:twleung@sauria.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2000 4:48 PM
To: xerces-j-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: [VOTE] XRI vs Xerces 2
In between versions of the requirements document, Ed and I
changed the name from Xerces2 requirements to XRI requirements.
It has been pointed out to me that we never reached consensus on
the name.
In order to make some progress on this issue, I would like to have
a vote on the usage of Xerces2 vs XRI. Until that vote concludes,
I will put both names back into the next version of the document.
I would like to suggest that we allow for one week for people to
express their opinions and cast their vote. I don't really see the
point of dragging this out.
Ted