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

frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 10 May 2002 16:40:49 -0400
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020510130531.01665d98@n...>
• References: <<5.1.0.14.0.20020510123018.03dba770@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020510123018.03dba770@n...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020510130531.01665d98@n...>

[I think it's better to express frustration than pretend it isn't there.
Please skip if you're tired of frustration.]

On Fri, 2002-05-10 at 16:10, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> We're trying to connect now.

Great - that's good to hear.

> Well reasoned, detailed technical discussion 
> helps us understand the needs, and there's been a lot of that on this thread.

That there has been.  Some of it has even been at a high level of
abstraction, diagnosing diseases rather than mere symptoms.
 
> The sarcasm sometimes gets in the way of this discussion. It's a reason 
> that some people prefer not to hang out on XML-Dev.

Precisely.  It gets very tiring to be told to talk in terms which mirror
the expectations of the designers and which address only details of the
specification (and preferably on the official lists).  Or did you really
mean that I was supposed to argue on your turf and your turf only?

> If you want to increase 
> communication between the designers of XML standards and XML-Dev, give us 
> lots of well reasoned, technical discussion, and be polite to us.

There's lots of well-reasoned technical discussion here (amidst the
limericks), much of it even polite, whether or not the "designers of XML
standards" are here.  It's very generous of them to listen and even
participate, certainly!

> And when there are so many different kinds of users, and many different 
> kinds of designers, each with their own perspective. That's almost always 
> the case in this kind of design work. The tools we are designing are 
> extremely general.

Which must be why the XQuery family of specs has followed a path that
covers seemingly every possible particular data processing need.  

Oh well.  We're as far apart as ever on the basics, but at least the
discussion's been good.

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

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• References:
  • 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...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
• Next by Date: Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
• Previous by thread: RE: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
• Next by thread: Re: frustration (was RE: XPath 2.0 )
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread