atom feed6 messages in org.apache.xmlgraphics.batik-devLicense for org.w3c.dom.ElementTraversal
FromSent OnAttachments
Michael GlavassevichJan 11, 2009 7:34 pm 
Cameron McCormackJan 11, 2009 7:49 pm 
Michael GlavassevichJan 11, 2009 8:44 pm 
Michael GlavassevichJan 12, 2009 4:56 am 
Michael GlavassevichJan 22, 2009 6:46 pm 
Cameron McCormackJan 22, 2009 6:53 pm 
Subject:License for org.w3c.dom.ElementTraversal
From:Michael Glavassevich (
Date:Jan 11, 2009 7:34:04 pm

Hi all,

In Xerces, I recently implemented the DOM Element Traversal specification [1] and was planning to add org.w3c.dom.ElementTraversal to xml-apis.jar in XML Commons. Normally the DOM specifications are accompanied with a zip file (e.g. DOM Level 3 [2]), containing the Java binding for the API with each of the source files having the W3C license/copyright header on each of them. For whatever reason the Web Applications Working Group didn't produce such a file for ElementTraversal but instead pasted the definition of the interface [3] (without Javadoc or any comments) directly into the specification. This seems to imply that someone wanting to use ElementTraversal in Java must create the source file for the interface themselves. I looked around the web and found that Batik [4] already did this work.

I was thinking of just linking the file from Batik into XML Commons but wanted to check whether the license on it was correct first. Usually source files for org.w3c.dom.* have the W3C copyright notice / license header. This one has the ASF header. I'm not sure which one should be in there. I assume the file wasn't created by the W3C but the interface definition would have come from the Element Traversal specification which has its own license [5]. Has anyone in Batik land explored this before and if so what was the conclusion?


[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]