Re: GEDCOM X

On 31/12/2012, at 17.31, Philip Durbin <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/30/2012 07:05 PM, Stephen Woodbridge wrote:
>> 4. I didn't like the connection to Java either, I see no need for =
that
>> in the spec, if there is some point that they are trying to establish =
by
>> it, it would be better to just spell it out in details so people that =
do
>> not work with Java have direct guidance.
>=20
> Right, I thought it was odd to read "the GEDCOM X data model is =
defined in Java" at http://www.gedcomx.org/Code.html
>=20
> Likewise, http://www.gedcomx.org/Community.html says "The GEDCOM X =
schemas and interfaces are defined in Java."
>=20
> Thank you, everyone, for the great discussion on GEDCOM X. It seems =
like something to keep an eye on.

I think I saw one of the devs (possibly Ryan Heaton @stoicflame) comment =
on an issue at some point that they were moving away from defining it in =
terms of Java and rather to have a language-agnostic spec with a =
reference implementation in Java. I can't find it just now, but in any =
case, I should think that would be the correct way of dealing with it. =
And if I'm not misremembering, that should be put on their site in big =
fat letters.

Perhaps I'll open a ticket next year ;) if I don't find where they said =
it.

Happy new years,
Mikkel=