-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi,
I'm not sure I understand what the "Java and .NET clients are a bit of a moving target" refers to. With the exception of the recent refactoring of the Loaders with the intent to release, the 'core' code has been unchanged in the repositories for well over a year. The .Net version of the API has been running on that core code using that data for well over a year too. And no, the W3C API is not implemented in the service. That API is *maybe* a nice pedagogical tool, but *useless* in the 'real' world. That it runs on a server 'here', I think is irrelevant really. It's 'faster' for me and I know of no Apache Infra I can access with the same ease for my .Net stuff. I don't mind, I stay within the given parameters of the licensing and what the Apache community finds acceptable and I'm happy to commit the resources and the result. I could 'complain' about 'open source' being .net unfriendly etc etc...but that's not the point, and this neither the place nor the time, true or not. I do my 'open source' bit, that others go on and on about "POM", "Jenkins" etc...sure, I'll take my lumps... I find the recent Java-'popery' upsetting because it clearly and *quite rightly* upset one of the *major* contributors and Java-contributor ! I find it doubly upsetting because I now am forced to consider my position, upsetting my 'open source' bit and possibly disrupting something I care about and contribute to. Not a happy camper, esjr -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTvqKgAAoJEOxywXcFLKYcEUQH/jplVEqwwVftwxABYq7fmigM 4wKgzLgeFkcvisTlFdXygX1u2L3CEFZXkMV2O0pG/34tu88VGLBaK4LuY/+aXqH5 ELmL808epT1iSyoUaBtewWo8RiS0E8qHobh8NLJCUYdkbHk9qfwPGjVwohFYQich A33MDJPNkYXtLj3blMmZiHbi2EWy7gw0zYHqqHhoXUcaaoHChOuJllD5fn9NEKHo 1TeImBU2VMmQYkAPGS/clbI4OQXGoOzY+cmO8mgfWRb7gAfnkvv2aKccBRXmBIaQ 43Oj0+J0r/B3nE97iz4j0Re27442NS2ZUyRQiGH1Vw0AalJsCt4hPZ5Fs9Zy0Ek= =rkoo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
