W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-ts@w3.org > June 2001

SV: Early XSLT's

From: Dimitris Dimitriadis <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:03:27 +0200
Message-ID: <9F67DC27F4CCD311ABA600508B6A66A44A67CB@VXOIMP1>
To: "'Mary Brady'" <mbrady@nist.gov>, www-dom-ts@w3.org
comments inlined

As a general point, however, I would for my own part really like to see that
the copyright issues get resolved as we should work as a group. This is a
unary initiative with contributions from various sources, but I was under
the impression that we work towards common goals and waive rights to the
material by donating it to the W3C for publication.

I would gladly schedule a telephone conference to resolve this as soon as
possible, especially since we are so close to finalizing the framework. 

-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Från: Mary Brady [mailto:mbrady@nist.gov]
Skickat: den 11 juni 2001 21:48
Till: www-dom-ts@w3.org
Ämne: Re: Early XSLT's

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
To: <mbrady@nist.gov>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: Early XSLT's

> I try to spend some time on the transforms tonight and put in into the
xmlconf project with a GPL license and with a personal copyright.  This will
provide a fallback in case any official transform is
> under the document license, then someone who wants to create a transform
for a different language can base it on this work and not have to start from

[mb] I would prefer not to see additional efforts, rather for those who are
interested in DOM testing to contribute to the
W3C DOM WG effort.  I'm sure we can work out a way that a generic
transformation can be made available as a
starting point for a particular language -- I would think that placing
additional licenses and personal copyrights on
the transformations will inhibit the overall effort, not contribute to it.

[dd] I agree. putting ownership claims on everything either entails that
people haven't contributed the material to begin with, or that they have
under the wrong impression, in which case they should not have submitted to
begin with. 

> With the IPR still being fuzzy, I'd prefer to try to keep sole authorship
at this time and I'd prefer to complete my intended scope before opening it
up for contributions.

[mb] This approach is tying our hands.  The test suite effort is supposed to
be public, with contributions from anyone who is
interested.  Much more can be accomplished if we help each other.

[dd] I actually thought of this as well. However, what would this mean? That
we give the copyright of the idea to generate the schema to X-hive, the
copyright to the tests to NIST, the copyright to the stylesheet for
generating the DOM TS ML to Curt, and so on? To what degree would we then
have a test suite?

> I should be able to make the code JUnit independent, however test classes
will require that the base class, DOMTestCase, provide JUnit-like functions
such as assertTrue, assertFalse, etc in addition
> to implementing utility functions like load, implementation, wait, etc.

[mb] I would expect that these functions would be implemented as part of the
transformation, given that they will have to be
done for each language.  There can be a set of helper functions that get
created for each language, and are then called -- which
makes for good coding practice, but requires that these functions be
available along with the tests, or the logic can be inlined
in the transformation -- which makes for stand-alone tests, and fits in with
contributions coming from many places.


Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 09:04:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:03 UTC