Re: [VOTE]: motion to transform Xerces into a top-level project as a member of the "federation" of XML projects

Neil Graham wrote:
>>I guess the problem I have with it is that, to me, a sub-
>>project should be related to a parent project which has
>>some physical code.
> 
> What's the "physical code" in the XML project to which all the Xerces-*,
> Xalan-* et al are related to?

There isn't any. Which is exactly why the individual
parsers are not sub-projects in the XML project and they
should not be sub-projects in the new Xerces project.

> Pretty much the same kind of thing that is their parent now.  Except under
> this proposal there's the commonality of "intimately related to XML
> parsing" binding the subprojects together; in XML, it's some vague
> association with XML or its applications.

Can we just say that and keep the organization of the
parser implementations the same? Then real sub-projects
of the parsers have a place to live within the project/
sub-project architecture.

> I wonder if you had a chance to glance at my proposal on how to modify the
> charter to permit "closely related" technologies.  I'd actually prefer to

The proposal would need to be fundamentally changed
before I could make suggestions about this point. And
if the proposal is changed then it's probably not an
issue anymore.

> keep us doing parsers, and have components like HTML parsers live in
> XML-commons (or some other more common place), but I thought this might
> address your need.

Hmmm... I guess it *could* be a "common" type thing but
it seems more of a Xerces-* sub-project. For example,
the Xerces-J parser could have an HTML sub-project that
includes the HTML DOM and an HTML parser built on the
XNI foundation.

-- 
Andy Clark * [email protected]