[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
>
> On Tue, 2002-05-07 at 12:36, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> > So far, I really feel like we are discussing various people's
> > philosophies
> > of XML. The requirements for XQuery were based on use
> cases, not on philosophy.
>
> Right, Jonathan. Every use case (except maybe update) should
> be considered critical and spared from possible trauma of any
> possible philosophical or aesthetic objection. The committee
> obviously has the best priorities for which cases matter.
> Notions of what markup is actually good at should have
> absolutely nothing to do with decisions about how to use markup.
Well hold on there, Johnathan's got a point. Does anyone on this
list have /examples/ or anti-use cases? The objection from
aesthetics is important, though not in my humble, but correct
opinion, compelling. Uses cases are the pictures that speak a
thousand words.
On the other hand, all the extra goodies, is it /necessary/ that
they be core to XPath2? Uche's suggestion of conformance (which I
take means comformant profiles), seems perfectly sensible.
The hardest part of XML has always been understanding what to throw
out.
Bill de hÓra
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.4
iQA/AwUBPNgTz+aWiFwg2CH4EQI6ogCeLRK820/WSXWmOT17x/sx7AZe+t8AoPPG
NVA2KIft2d/WnlA3RwuJKZst
=O3rr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
