(this is an attempt to explain rather than start another useless flame war. ..)
On Friday, July 4, 2003, at 12:24 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:22:10PM -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
<snip>
The division of XML vs Jakarta predates me for certain, but I think the main
issues surrounding that are rusty.
The problem is Jakarta itself. Centering a PMC around a *language* rather
than functionality is the inherent problem. These questions will continue to
arise over and over.
though it's sometimes hard for others to see, jakarta is concerned only with server side java rather than the whole language. jakarta has rejected projects because they are not sufficiently within scope. but server side java is still a very, very large area...
<snip>
To that extent, I'd say it is an XML project. However, I think it is mostly
up to the XMLBeans community to ask for one or the other. If that PMC says
"okay", then everything is fine. (and no... PMCs are not allowed to meet at
sundown to duel for an arriving project :-)
FWIW i'd say that the historic distinction is that xml has been more concerned with standards compliance than jakarta. if a server side java component involves xml in a non-standard way then jakarta has been seen as a better home than xml.
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
