Lists Home |
Date Index |
* Uche Ogbuji <email@example.com> [2005-04-24 00:06]:
> On Sat, 2005-04-23 at 18:01 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> > I've never seen that site before.
> Ummm. It's the first ghit for "xupdate". The *very first one*.
> > I used to be aware of http://www.xmldb.org/ but as the original
> > poster said, the domain is now for sale. The site hosted on
> > SourceForge seems to be an archive of the old
> > http://www.xmldb.org site. It's just as I remember it from 2
> > years ago right down to the fact that the latest entry on the
> > news section of the site from 2 years ago.
> Again to stick to my analogy, we haven't had a chance to update
> EXSLT Web site for quite a while, either. Doesn't make EXSLT
> Historical note: All the XML:DB material moved to SourceForge in June of
> 2004. The XML:DB folks said clearly that they were dropping the
> xmldb.org domain at that time.
When a site is not updated at all for five years, and the
e-mail addresses attached to the site are unresponsive, then
XUpdate both looks and sounds like an "abandoned" duck.
The site that is the first hit still links to the dead site, and
many of the links are broken. It is easy enough to dump
something at source forge and forget about it.
There was a mild effort to move XUpdate's reference
implementation to Apache last year. I was going to put some
effort into revising the specification, but I couldn't get
ahold of anyone who could clarify the licensing on the
> > Also the XUpdate specification does seem to be in limbo given
> > that the last working draft is from five years ago.
> Work on the spec pretty much stopped when it was considered "good
> enough". Again, this is part of the project's scrappy nature.
> This hasn't been any obstacle to users and implementations,
> because it's just fine for worse-is-better.
> > Stating that the technology is abandoned and incomplete doesn't
> > sound like FUD. It is a reasonable conclusion to come to based
> > on the facts.
> If you choose which facts to pay attention to, you can come to any
> conclusion you like. That does not make that conclusion useful to
> users. XUpdate, to the contrary, and fortunately, *is* useful to
> I am concerned about one thing. XUpdate needs a usable mailing
> list. I'm at least grateful to this thread for making me think
> about that. I certainly have no stake in XUpdate, but I like it
> enough that maybe I should...
I set one up last year at firstname.lastname@example.org and it should still
be up and running.
Alan Gutierrez - email@example.com