[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> The "good old days", they were very brief, and our golden
> memories seem to derive from a period when XML was
> defined as a process of creating smaller specifications
> that were easily implemented by graduate students rather
> than enormous specifications that take person-years to
> comprehend and implement.
After thinking about software for 20 years, I prefer to see progress by
modules, not monoliths. I like to be able to take software in parts, taking
what I want, being allowed what discard (and control) what I want. I like
parts of XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0, but I don't need all of it. I wish
implementers could get more of it in modules, that they could reach
different levels of compliance based on what modules they implement. I am
happy about separate specs for functions/operators and output, but they
aren't modules. Small sturdy steps seems a better approach than huge leaps.
You can put a lot of time and money into a big, uno solution, and then find
your money and time ill spent.
Mike
|
