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

RE: Simplicity of XPath

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Matt Sergeant <matt@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:26:01 -0600

IME, it tends to divide along backgrounds.  
Not everyone coming to the party was 
formerly a DesPH.   On a scale of things, 
I don't think it is THAT hard but I've 
spent a lot of time on the phone lately 
with power C++ toTheMetal programmers 
who can't get it without a lot of time 
in.  I can't tell if it is resistance 
to techniques they label as "stupid" 
(really, they do), or because the 
combinations of bracket types plus 
abbreviations plus getting it clear 
which context is in effect at any 
given time plus what functions do 
what is more than they can bear at 
this late date in their careers.  

Consensus be hanged.  Men at work. ;-)

Len 
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Sergeant [mailto:matt@s...]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 
> Being able to reapply XPath has advantages
> on the learning curve although the syntax of XPath isn't
> all that easy to learn.

I always thought it was one of the easier aspects to pick up. Is there a
general consensus on this matter?

Or is it that the simple (abbreviated) parts of XPath are easy, but the
non-abbreviated parts are hard?

• Prev by Date: Simplicity of XPath
• Next by Date: Re: Why not canonical parsers? [Was: Pull-based XML parsers? ]
• Previous by thread: Dangers of Subsetting? (was RE: Pull-based XML parsers?)
• Next by thread: RE: Simplicity of XPath
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread