On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:53:24 -0500, David Nadlinger <s...@klickverbot.at>
wrote:
On 2/3/11 11:46 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[…] If they were more open and
willing to share code, then building off of what they have and turning
it into a
range-based solution would likely make a lot of sense, but since that's
not the
case, we need to figure it out on our own.
Just like Andrei said, I don't think this issue is worth being discussed
over and over again, but I'm curious: Did somebody actually talk to
»Tango« resp. the authors of its XML module concerning amendment for
Phobos? It's needlessly fueling an »us vs. them« debate in an already
small community of developers which drives me crazy…
You are welcome to try. I don't hold out much hope based on past.
I did not want to fuel a debate on "us vs. them", Phobos and Tango can
happily co-exist without crossing paths, I just wanted to respond Tomek to
tread carefully based on Tango representatives' prior statements, since he
asked. The last thing I want to see again is someone waste effort, nobody
likes to do that. With the correct precautions, we don't have to go
through this again.
I think Andrei said it best -- we can find other XML libraries to learn
from.
-Steve
