Lists Home |
Date Index |
> At 01:33 PM 9/28/2002 +0100, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> >However baroque, it has to be said that the rules made XPath 1.0 very
> >easy to use. It may seem baroque to implementers, who have to delve
> >into the details, but to users XPath 1.0 appears to "just work". The
> >same cannot be said of XPath 2.0.
> I think this is something forgotten in many of the arguments and
> development cycles of recent technologies. The implementers are far fewer
> than the users. Ease of implementation, IMO, should take a back seat to
> ease of use. That something may take a software developer a few extra hours
> is no reason to make it harder for the author every document produced using
> that technology.
I certainly agree with this in principle. As a developer I have never
complained about difficult implementation that genuinely makes life easier for
the user. But I've often found that this is a false distinction. IN my
experience there is a strong correlation between ease of use and easo of
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org http://fourthought.com
Apache 2.0 API - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-apache/
Python&XML column: Tour of Python/XML - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/09/18/py.html
Python/Web Services column: xmlrpclib - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-pyth10.html