Anthony Vanelverdinghe

> My project produces multi-release JARs valid for Java 8 and 11 (7 and 11 for 1.0), and a dependency that only runs on 11 would be useless. Good point,...

With "the sources themselves", I meant: "everything but module-info.java". So: `module-info` will be compiled with `--release 11`, and everything else will be compiled with `--release 8`

Strictly speaking it won't be a multi-release JAR, but even it it were: I don't see what point you're trying to make? The JAR will work as a modular JAR...

> where you talked about keeping source level 1.5 I never talked about keeping source level 1.5. I said: > [...] upgrade the compiler level to 11 as well (the...

> First of all, I acknowledge [...] Thanks, I appreciate it. > Considering the way Java worked up to and including 8, it would have been a backward compatibility bug...

My point of departure is: only export each of the `dom/sax/xom` packages plus the "transitive closure" of their API. So in practice this means: additionally export the `common` package, except...

Fair enough, so I think we can agree on the following: * 3 Java modules: `nu.validator.htmlparser`, `nu.validator.htmlparser.xom`, `nu.validator.saxtree` * no classes are moved (i.e. forget about my proposal to move...

> [...] so I assume nu.validator.htmlparser would have requires static com.ibm.icu. Correct? Correct. > In any case, I think jchardet doesn't belong in this repo. I'd still like to avoid...

I've already signed the OCA (years ago, which is why it's a different e-mail address): https://oca.opensource.oracle.com/?ojr=contrib-list

/signed See https://www.oracle.com/technical-resources/oracle-contributor-agreement.html#v