From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <mauve-discuss-return-428-listarch-mauve-discuss=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 17594 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2002 11:03:04 -0000
Mailing-List: contact mauve-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:mauve-discuss-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/mauve-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:mauve-discuss-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: mauve-discuss-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 17583 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 11:03:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO executor.cambridge.redhat.com) (195.224.55.237)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 11:03:01 -0000
Received: from cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com (vpn50-13.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.13])
	by executor.cambridge.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CD252ABB05; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:02:59 +0000 (GMT)
Received: (from aph@localhost)
	by cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.0) id gBAB35h15482;
	Tue, 10 Dec 2002 11:03:05 GMT
From: Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15861.51689.451253.71645@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 03:03:00 -0000
To: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
Cc: mauve-discuss@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: ResourceBundle variants and child variants
In-Reply-To: <1039461046.21312.256.camel@dogx200-017>
References: <1039286784.5707.18.camel@elsschot>
	<15860.32315.697847.431056@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>
	<1039458865.2921.233.camel@dogx200-017>
	<15860.58123.895049.444714@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com>
	<1039461046.21312.256.camel@dogx200-017>
X-SW-Source: 2002-q4/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2

Mark Wielaard writes:
 > Hi,
 > 
 > On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 19:38, Andrew Haley wrote:
 > > Mark Wielaard writes:
 > >  > But the question is, what is considered The Specification?
 > >  > I use The Java Class Libraries books a lot when implementing classes.
 > >  > And since it describes the child variants it could also be argued that
 > >  > the online API doc (and most implementations except for Kaffe) is
 > >  > flawed.
 > > 
 > > What version of Java is The Java Class Libraries, Volume 1, Second
 > > Edition supposed to document?
 > 
 > The 1.1 version of the Class libraries. The Supplemental gives that
 > changes for 1.2.

Right, so the child variants haven't been mentioned in any 1.3 or 1.4 spec?

If so, that's a slam-dunk, IMO.

Andrew.