Hello, On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 03:52:08PM -0800, Gary L Peskin wrote: > It's good to know that Andy left us with a faithful port of tidy! I > have real reservations about "fixing" the JTidy code base and getting > out of sync with Tidy. I think we should strive to keep the > implementations as identical as possible in this core functionality. Yep! Now I know what the Wine team has to go through, trying to duplicate all the bugs ;) Seriously, I appreciate Andy's and Dave's work tremendously, and do think that the Java port should keep as faithful as possible to the original. > When Tidy is fixed, we will obviously reflect that change in JTidy. But > I don't think it's a good idea to have local fixes all over the place. > I felt badly about the last fix but it was causing a java exception and > I annotated it clearly. We'll have to remove it or revisit it when Tidy > is corrected. I agree. I do think, however, that in cases where a trivial fix would be possible, we could try to offer it to Mr. Raggett just to make his job easier. If necessary, I can administer a separate CVS code fork (a branch, mergeable to the trunk) for JTidy versions that beat the original to bugfixes etc. Forks are not very productive though :( -Sami -- lempinen@iki.fi http://www.iki.fi/lempinen/ apt-get a lifeReceived on Thursday, 2 November 2000 19:05:59 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:37:48 GMT