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

RE: nostalgia (was RE: Ten new XQuery)

• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: nostalgia (was RE: Ten new XQuery)
• From: "Mike Fitzgerald" <mike@w...>
• Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 05:53:29 -0700
• Importance: Normal
• In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.2.20030510103624.030b11c8@s...>

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> The "good old days", they were very brief, and our golden
> memories seem to derive from a period when XML was
> defined as a process of creating smaller specifications
> that were easily implemented by graduate students rather
> than enormous specifications that take person-years to
> comprehend and implement.

After thinking about software for 20 years, I prefer to see progress by
modules, not monoliths. I like to be able to take software in parts, taking
what I want, being allowed what discard (and control) what I want. I like
parts of XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0, but I don't need all of it. I wish
implementers could get more of it in modules, that they could reach
different levels of compliance based on what modules they implement. I am
happy about separate specs for functions/operators and output, but they
aren't modules. Small sturdy steps seems a better approach than huge leaps.
You can put a lot of time and money into a big, uno solution, and then find
your money and time ill spent.

Mike

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: nostalgia
    • From: Martin Klang <martin@h...>

• References:
  • nostalgia (was RE: Ten new XQuery)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Standardising RegExps (Was: Is XML Doomed ...?)
• Next by Date: RE: nostalgia
• Previous by thread: nostalgia (was RE: Ten new XQuery)
• Next by thread: RE: nostalgia
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread