RFR [9] 8077332: tidy warnings from javax/xml

[alexander stepanov]

Hello Joe,

The copyright changes were reverted.

Please review the updated fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/

("<code></code>" replaced with "{@code}", removed unnecessary "</p>", 
used "@literal" tag).

Thanks,
Alexander


On 13.04.2015 21:19, huizhe wang wrote:
>
> On 4/13/2015 4:42 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 13/04/2015 12:22, alexander stepanov wrote:
>>> Hello Joe,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the notes;
>>>
>>> > Copyright year shall not be changed.
>>>
>>> That seems to be a bit controversial point; sometimes (while 
>>> cleaning docs) I was asked to do that, other times - not to do that. 
>>> Our internal policy seemingly assigns to change the 2nd date every 
>>> time the sources were touched (but that may be a question of 
>>> ambiguous interpretation).
>>>
>>> But of course I can easily revert these changes if you're totally 
>>> sure it should be done.
>>>
>> This has always been confusing. Some areas insist on updating the 
>> copyright dates, others don't. AFAIK, it has always been optional. I 
>> think the original assumption was that the update_copyright_year 
>> script (in the top-level repo) be run periodically to do bulk 
>> updates. Unfortunately that script doesn't seem to be run very often 
>> now and this strengthens the case to update the dates on a continuous 
>> basis. I have not come across the argument that html tidy tasks that 
>> don't change the javadoc should not update the copyright date. The 
>> general topic probably should move to jdk9-dev and get this decided 
>> once and documented in the developer guide.
>
> I think the key question to ask is: is this the code I can claim 
> Copyright with? To me, format, code style, html tags and other minor 
> changes, these are not code changes one can claim copyright with.
>
> The date of a Copyright establishes how far back the claim is made. In 
> case where the work is substantially revised, a new Copyright claim is 
> established, which is what the 2nd year is about.
>
> In this case, esp. for the JAXP API (e.g. javax.xml.datatype), I'd 
> like to see the years maintained because those are the years the API 
> was designed and modified. The "tidy warnings" change did not change 
> the API.
>
> -Joe
>
>>
>> -Alan
>