Lists Home |
Date Index |
At 02:58 PM 7/8/2002 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>At 02:47 PM 7/8/2002 -0400, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>>>Sorry Jonathan, but at this point I'm not in the mood to play with
>>>700-page specifications that do both more and less than I need. (Yes,
>>>I'd like update too.) I'll take another look at XQuery when it clearly
>>>presents a subset for work with well-formed XML only, without inflicting
>>>typed expectations on that understanding. I'm not willing to waste my
>>>time playing in toxic turf controlled by an organization in which I have
>>OK, but in that case, please don't waste too much of our time with expert
>>opinions on a technology you haven't taken the time to learn.
>No, Jonathan, it's not that simple. I've read through these
>specifications. At some point I decided that they were horrible enough
>that putting in the effort for a complete understanding of them was an
>astounding waste of time.
Well, if supporting typed XML is "toxic turf" to you, there is probably
little to be gained by further debate on this subject. According to our
requirements, we need to support XML that is well-formed, governed by a
DTD, or governed by an XML Schema. You don't like our requirements. We are
required to meet them.