[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> Ummm... before this all becomes a slugfest, maybe we should continue
> to ask, "what does direct access mean". I'm all for easier
> programming. If that is at the cost of losing the data portability,
> then we pay the cost of harder programming. Bosworth knows what the
> tradeoffs are, so I suspect he is about to make some suggestions. I
> am curious and
> the XQuery example has merit.
Let's distinguish the slugfest, or at least the grounds for it, from the
'direct access' question. The grounds for slugfest are that threads on
XML-DEV should not be redirected to other forums, least of all ones
where the very premises of the thread are out of order. As for 'direct
access', it means (as it always has since I started reading code in
1966): conforming exactly to brittle expectations from a priori
agreements, so that I don't have to parse it, lex it, analyze it,
compare it to its history, or otherwise do in computerized processing
what the human brain has to do in handling every bit of new input it
ever encounters. Have any of the defenders of direct access here (are
there any?) said anything to contradict that characterization?
Respectfully,
Walter Perry
|
