On 06/06/2014 03:23 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Jun 6, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> Well, I'd also say that we don't care about syntaxes which are not >> already popular. There's no point in being compatible with something >> nobody uses. How many of the above have any uptake? > > I think there is JQuery, JSONPath, and everything else, really. If we can > draw some parallels, I think that would be sufficient to make people > comfortable.
Well, then those are the only ones worth considering. >>> I do think that the name should be changed if we don’t follow an existing >>> standard, as [JSQuery](https://code.google.com/p/gwtquery/wiki/JsQuery) is >>> already a thing. >> >> I saw that too, but I don't get the impression that Google jsquery is >> all that active. No? > > It’s Google. You really want to wrangle with their attorneys? Google is not going to sue us over a minor OSS project which isn't a commercial product. The relevant question is: are users liable to confuse our jsquery with Google jsquery? Maybe we should call it "jsonesque" ;-) -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
