Re: GEDCOM X

Hi all,

Took a little longer than expected due to other commitments, but I've =
created an issue here:
https://github.com/FamilySearch/gedcomx/issues/228

Please comment as you see fit.

Mikkel

On 31/12/2012, at 22.39, Ron Savage <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Mikkel
>=20
> On 01/01/13 03:45, Mikkel Eide Eriksen wrote:
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Perhaps I'll open a ticket next year ;) if I don't find where they =
said it.
>=20
> Yes, open a ticket, politely but firmly reminding them that a =
Java-centric view of the world is not the only possible view...
>=20
> Happy New Year!
>=20
> And here's hoping this year is even more productive that the last, =
which for me at least, was very productive :-).
>=20
> --=20
> Ron Savage
> http://savage.net.au/
> Ph: 0421 920 622