[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 11:22 AM 5/9/2003 -0700, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>The fundamental complaint I have about XML-DEV is that people are very
>good at generating megabytes of mail traffic about technologies they
>neither have used nor tried to understand. XML-DEV is a festival of
>cranky old men complaining about the "youth of today" and how things
>were better in the XML world in the old days. I've read the few
>complaints about XQuery & XSLT 2.0 and besides irrational FUD about
>dependencies on W3C XML Schema have failed to see any valid issues
>brought up.
The subject line of this thread is:
Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working Drafts
Few of the messages in this thread refer to anything in these Working
Drafts. I am grateful for those that do. Few of the messages in this thread
actually discuss the languages described by these Working Drafts.
Now maybe Dare's wrong - maybe some of you have actually read these Working
Drafts and understand the languages they describe. But there's been little
evidence of that in the content of the messages. And when we ask for
specific technical comments, several respondents say that they have said
everything in the past, and their responses are archived. Which is exactly
what many of these respondents said in the past when asked for specific
technical comments - - I don't want to attack individuals, but their
responses *are* archived.
Of course, many of these same people are also writing essays explaining the
epistemological and geopolitical reasons that W3C Working Groups are not
listening to their great wisdom. One of the most basic reasons some of
these people are being ignored is that they are not making any specific
technical comments based on a careful reading of the specifications.
Jonathan
|
