Re: limits of the generic
> At 01:33 PM 9/28/2002 +0100, Jeni Tennison wrote: > > >However baroque, it has to be said that the rules made XPath 1.0 very > >easy to use. It may seem baroque to implementers, who have to delve > >into the details, but to users XPath 1.0 appears to "just work". The > >same cannot be said of XPath 2.0. > > I think this is something forgotten in many of the arguments and > development cycles of recent technologies. The implementers are far fewer > than the users. Ease of implementation, IMO, should take a back seat to > ease of use. That something may take a software developer a few extra hours > is no reason to make it harder for the author every document produced using > that technology. I certainly agree with this in principle. As a developer I have never complained about difficult implementation that genuinely makes life easier for the user. But I've often found that this is a false distinction. IN my experience there is a strong correlation between ease of use and easo of implementation. -- Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc. http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com Apache 2.0 API - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-apache/ Python&XML column: Tour of Python/XML - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/09/18/py.html Python/Web Services column: xmlrpclib - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-pyth10.html
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format