[Council] Discrepency between JEP-0020 and its References

Peter Millard me at pgmillard.com
Thu Apr 22 11:12:48 CDT 2004


Matthew A. Miller wrote:
> After discussing this with a couple of others, my personal opinion is
> that a modification to JEP-0020 is appropriate, to use <feature/>
> instead of <query/>, and ensure that change is properly reflected to all
> references to JEP-0020.  However, JEP-0020 is a standards-track JEP in
> the "draft" status, so the impact of this change could be significant.
> Yet, there seems to be significantly more implementations of the JEPs
> that conceptually rely on JEP-0020 than on JEP-0020 as-is.
> Thoughts?

I'm +1 on changing -20 and -116 to use <feature> instead of <query> and
<features>. It seems there are more implementations of -95 & -96 than
_JUST_ -20. I agree that changing 95 & 96 would be more of an impact than
changing -20.

pgm.




More information about the Council mailing list