On 28.08.2005 11:34:30 Cameron McCormack wrote: > Hi Jeremias. > > Jeremias Maerki: > > - The smil class EventTimeControl doesn't contain the W3C license header > > and the other smil class is missing. It seems to make sense to add the > > original two files from the following URL to the XML Commons repository > > instead of copying the Batik files. > > > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/java/classes/org/w3c/dom/smil/ > > Ok. > > > - Am I right that there are currently no SVG 1.2 specific Java bindings > > and the current classes in Batik's Trunk are still the SVG 1.1 Java > > Bindings? > > That's right. There isn't any official Java binding published for the > SVG 1.2 stuff.
Good to know, thanks. > > Have there been any modifications on these files? I'm inclined > > also to use the original files from the W3C distribution instead of > > copying the ones from the Batik repo because of possible modifications. > > I think all but org/w3c/dom/svg/EventListenerInitializer.java come from > http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/java-binding.zip. Though that interface does > come from http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/java.html. Ok. > > The problem is the third item in the W3C software license [1]. Any > > modifications need to be documented. > > > > - There have been modifications on the SAC classes in [2]. According to > > [1] these modifications need to be documented. Are they? > > So these are just javadoc fixes to avoid warnings when building the > documentation. Must these be documented in each file or can there be a > Batik-wide W3C-MODIFICATIONS file or some such? IANAL, but AFAIK documentation is also a piece of work and any modification makes it a derivative work, so yes, the modifications need to be documented. > > - The svg DOM classes contain an interface EventListenerInitializer > > which is not originally a W3C file but actually Apache licensed. IMO > > this files resides in the wrong place in this case. What to do with this > > one? > > Well the java.html webpage doesn't say what package this interface > should be in. It would seem sensible, to allow multiple Java SVG > implementations to use the same classes, that it is in some known > package like org.w3c.dom.svg. I interpret this page as saying that this interface is to be placed in the top-level directory (i.e. no package name). Given that it was published in the spec it would appear to me that the code is licensed under either the W3C documentation license or the W3C software license. Probably the former because of its location. But the latter seems more reasonable. Stupid dilemma. Given this information I think it should be reasonably safe to put this class with its present package (for backwards-compatibility) in XML Commons under the W3C software license with a special note somewhere where this file comes from. Does that make sense? Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
