Re: XML idea

[richard]

On 7 Jan 2004, at 00:37, Helge Hess wrote:

> On 07.01.2004, at 00:42, Jason Clouse wrote:
> > On 2004-01-06 15:12:25 -0800 Alex Perez 
> > <aperez@student.santarosa.edu> wrote:
> > > This is the kind of wrapper that should go into my PortabilityKit.
> >
> > I'm sure I'm not the only one who didn't know that a PortabilityKit 
> > even existed.  Since portability is pretty important, should this kit 
> > be included along with core, so it's not so obscure?  Portability 
> > should be an out-of-the-box capability, right?  Not something you 
> > have to 1) know about; and 2) go download somewhere.
>
> The extensions library is available for a looong time. Not sure why we 
> need a new "PortabilityKit" library.

The problem with the extension library was that its copyright was not 
owned by the FSF,
and I think FSF policy was that it should therefore not be distributed 
as part of GNUstep.

For this reason, the base additions library was added to the base 
library, so extensions
and portability issues could be addressed by code which (while clearly 
separated from
the main base library source for clarity) would be available as part of 
the core distribution.

I don't believe that the extensions library contains any compatibility 
code that the base
additions does not address.

It sounds like the PortabilityKit is an alternative to the base 
additions library ... if assigning
copyright to the FSF is not a problem, why not just contribute to the 
additions?