Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 05:37 PM 5/10/2002 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-05-10 at 17:20, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> > Will you be in Barcelona? I'd rather discuss this in person and
> > If not at Barcelona, perhaps the next time we meet.
>Sorry, Jonathan. I do pretty much all my XML-focused work in public,
>and this qualifies.
Well, if you insist.
>If you'd like to tell me once again not to be so strident, you're very
>welcome to do it in public. The private version was obviously not
>convincing, and perhaps even counterproductive. I far prefer direct
>conversation to false politeness.
I generally prefer to discuss why someone is frustrated in private, without
a big audience.
Stridency is not the main issue, but I think it would be helpful to at
least be strident at a level of detail that allows your claims to be
evaluated and discussed.
Here's perhaps the core statement of your earlier email.
>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?
I think I asked you to be concrete. I think I also asked for use cases,
examples, concrete implementation concerns, or anything else concrete
enough to be evaluated on a technical level.
If by arguing "on my turf" you mean arguing in terms of what an XQuery user
or an XQuery implementor will actually need to do, I really was asking you
to do that. Our intended audience is our users and implementors. I do not
know whether you know XQuery or the issues involved well enough to argue on
this turf, and I could not tell from your email. If not, perhaps you are
not ready to announce loudly to the world at large what the verdict on
XQuery should be.
Let me refer to an earlier discussion:
>on Thu, 2002-05-02 at 16:27, Eric van der Vlist wrote:
> > I do not want to give any judgment on the quality on these mails (this
> > would be too personal and subjective) but I am primarly interested in
> > core XML technologies (maybe I should call this hardcore or extreme XML)
> > and not that much in specific applications (such as Web Services to name
> > one) nor phylosophical or business discussions (I have nothing against
> > phylosophers nor businessmen and have even some specimens in my family
> > but just don't understand them).
> > I am longing for a list rich of actual angle brackets, dedicated to
> > technical discussions (such as the xml-dev which has given birth to SAX
> > and RDDL, discussed pro and cons of schema languages or XUpdate
> > syntaxes, used to help the newbies, ...).
I thought that the general response from the list was that most people
really wanted that too. In fact, here is your response:
>I know I can be one of the worst offenders, but Eric's quite right about
>the recent difficulty in finding angle brackets here. We might do well
>to focus on angle brackets and how best to use them for a while. There's
>still plenty of work to do in "hardcore XML", whatever happens to the
>layers above it.
I was asking for the XQuery equivalent of angle brackets.
That doesn't mean that you don't have the right to post any message you
want. I don't propose that we rescind the first amendment. But many of your
messages complain that the W3C is not listening to you, and if that is a
concern, I think the best way to get listened to is to give specific
technical feedback. You also complain when I point out that we have a
public comments list which we are obligated to respond to. If you want to
get listened to by the W3C, it is more effective to post to the public
feedback lists. Naturally, it is perfectly in order to discuss things
anywhere you want, but if you don't post to the feedback lists, you have
not sent your feedback to the Working Group.
But that's enough. I prefer to discuss technical things on XML-Dev. We can
discuss stridency and frustration over a red wine next time we meet. I
doubt very much that most people on XML-Dev subscribed to this list
because they want to read about our feelings.