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

Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 13 May 2002 20:29:38 -0400
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020513170626.03e76008@n...>
• References: <<5.1.0.14.0.20020513160517.03e76008@n...> <<5.1.0.14.0.20020511115542.026fd8a8@n...> <<5.1.0.14.0.20020510141922.0360dea8@n...> <<5.1.0.14.0.20020510130531.01665d98@n...> <<5.1.0.14.0.20020510123018.03dba770@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020510123018.03dba770@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020510130531.01665d98@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020510141922.0360dea8@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020511115542.026fd8a8@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020513160517.03e76008@n...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020513170626.03e76008@n...>

Okay, here's a noun:
 
  PSVI
 
Here's a request to trim a feature (note the use of verbs):

  Drop PSVI. A lot of people claim they need it, but it's poorly conceived.

Repeat, with "strong typing" as the noun.

Or is that too much concrete all at once?

Come on, Jonathan.  The W3C's made one enormous mistake and you seem
fervently intent on compounding it.  Given that mistake, I don't believe
that picking out particular operators or functions is useful.  I'll be
happy to work on a guide to the spec that subsets the enormous tower you
seem intent on building, but I'm not willing to wait my time pretending
use cases are useful for substraction.

You seem intent on controlling the nature and even grammar of the
conversation.  Hence my immense frustration.  It's very generous of
others to play your game.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Move type info to a separate spec?
    • From: "Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@d...>

• References:
  • Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • RE: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • RE: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
• Next by Date: Re: XSLT 2.0 and XSL(-FO) 2.0
• Previous by thread: Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
• Next by thread: Move type info to a separate spec?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread