|
|
Re: [xml-dev] XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
|
[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
In a message dated 10/05/02 21:32:06 GMT Daylight Time, jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com writes:
The sarcasm sometimes gets in the way of this discussion.
Jonathan,
You may want to consider the possibility that sarcasm is way to indicate that at least some people on this list perceive that they are not being heard.
It's a reason
that some people prefer not to hang out on XML-Dev. 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.
Jonathan,
Clear, concise answers from WG members to questions would help increase communication.
I have asked you what is the vision for XPath and each time you have (in the posts I have seen) failed to answer.
How am I to interpret that? These are some possibilities that come to mind:
1. A clear strategy exists but you decline/refuse to share it. Impression given - W3C does not consider us significant enough to have access to that information.
2. No clear strategy exists. Impression given - you don't want us to realise how ad hoc all this is.
There are other variants but hopefully you get the idea.
So, I will ask you once more: "What is the vision/strategy for XPath 2.0?".
Also, you may want to consider the reality that communication involves listening. You have a pretty clear agenda that you want detailed technical points (only) raised.
Effectively you are signalling that you and/or the WG do not want more strategic questions raised/discussed. Can you understand that that comes across as patronising?
Speaking of politeness. Shouldn't that cut two ways? Michael may have been totally accurate to refer to my post as an "absurd caricature" but wouldn't it have been more constructive to respond along the lines of "Your concerns are unfounded. We have already considered the needs of those XPath users who don't (for some uses) want to use typing in XPath 2.0 and if you read Chapter X.XX in [document] you will see that we have this concern covered.".
As the importance that W3C specs have on real people's lives increases W3C and its WGs will need to be much better at communication (including listening) to avoid transmitting negative patronising perceptions.
Andrew Watt
|
|
|
|
|
|