> -----Original Message----- > From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: maandag 7 januari 2002 18:14 > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: Commons Validator Packaging/Content > > > on 1/7/02 9:06 AM, "Tom Klaasen (TeleRelay)" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > You were talking about "jakarta", weren't you? > > Not in that specific case.
Then what were you talking about? Commons? Turbine? Torque? Something else? > > ... just to see that they got the details wrong, and discard their > > effort as "useless". That's what happened to me, anyway. > Documentation > > has to be written by developers, not by users. > > That is where I feel you are 100% wrong. Documentation should > be written by > users or (tech writers) and proofed by developers. That is > how we did the > Velocity documentation and it came out as some of the best > documentation of > any Jakarta project. > > Developers are to close to their stuff to document it in such > a way as to be > useful to users. As has been said for testing for a long time. > > Anyway, voting "-1" on something to say "you have to take mine, not > > yours" is euhm... not constructive for dialog and cooperation IMHO. > > I voted that way not because of what you say, but in the > overall interests > of the Jakarta project. I'm sorry that you were not able to > see the forest > through the trees. Glad to hear you're always right and the others are always wrong. It must make live very easy (or tiresome, as in this discussion). Please, play the ball and not the person. The "you're too dumb to understand this" argument does not impress me. The consequence is the same, and the consequence is that commons has _no_ validator framework now. Is this in the general interest of the jakarta project? If yes, I will refrain from commenting further. tomK -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
