On 06/06/2014 03:23 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2014, at 12:51 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> Well, I'd also say that we don't care about syntaxes which are not
>> already popular. There's no point in being compatible with something
>> nobody uses. How many of the above have any uptake?
>
> I think there is JQuery, JSONPath, and everything else, really. If we can draw some parallels, I think that would be
sufficientto make people comfortable.
Well, then those are the only ones worth considering.
>>> I do think that the name should be changed if we don’t follow an existing standard, as
[JSQuery](https://code.google.com/p/gwtquery/wiki/JsQuery)is already a thing.
>>
>> I saw that too, but I don't get the impression that Google jsquery is
>> all that active. No?
>
> It’s Google. You really want to wrangle with their attorneys?
Google is not going to sue us over a minor OSS project which isn't a
commercial product.
The relevant question is: are users liable to confuse our jsquery with
Google jsquery?
Maybe we should call it "jsonesque" ;-)
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
