[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 15:54, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> > lets be honest, Jeni, the silence from most users is mainly due to
> > the investment in time to review the bewildering array of documents
>
> Yes, and I think that's the same reason why W3C XML Schema got so far
> before people started to complain about its complexity -- people won't
> read the specs until they need to in order to use the technology, by
> which time it's usually too late to change the technology into
> something useful. (Though I guess that led to RELAX NG; perhaps
> that's a route to follow...)
I don't know how representative it is, but there is also at least one
person (me) who has started to read these specs, seen that he didn't
agree with the requirements and didn't consider that the addded
complexity over XPath 1.0 is not worth the pain IHO and just can't
comment because he has no comments except "I'll stay with XPath 1.0 and
exslt as much as I can"...
And I sure hope we can derive from XPATH/XSLT 1.0, exslt (and eventually
xvif) a Relax NG like version of these monster specs.
Eric
--
Rendez-vous a Paris (Forum XML).
http://www.technoforum.fr/integ2002/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
