[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)
• From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
• Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 08:38:03 +0000
• In-reply-to: <001b01c1c4e1$2198c3f0$4bc8a8c0@A...>
• References: <2X3W74B8GAHBN4Z63D8A6KFZIHHGNJ.3c855805@MChamp><200203060138.g261ctu10329@d...><3C85BA20.857FCE4D@r...>

At 18:32 06/03/2002 +1100, Rick Jelliffe wrote:

>There is a case to be made that, for implementability reasons, it is actually
>good to bundle together as many orthogonal functions that can act as
>visitors on the same traversal of the infoset.

???!!!

This makes no sense to me. I must be missing something. What do you
mean "for implementability reasons". My gut tells me quite the
opposite!

Sean

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserveits "X".)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Stupid Question (was RE: XML doesn't deserve its "X".)
• Next by Date: RE: Can't get XML to display through XSLT
• Previous by thread: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)
• Next by thread: Re: Visiting your cake and eating it too (was Stupid Question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread