[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Tue, 2003-06-10 at 19:14, Erik Bruchez wrote:
> Also, there is a natural need for more functionality. If you were to
> look at the evolution of Java over the last eight years, what would
> you find out? My guess is that Java has largely beaten the market
> growth ;-)
IMO, complexity is not the main point here. What's happening with XPath
2.0 is that you're changing the nature of the language, like if you said
for Java: "the next version will not be interpreted but compiled" or
"the next version will be dynamically typed" or maybe more to the point
"you will have to provide a UML model before you can define a class in
the next version".
Eric
--
Have you ever thought about unit testing XSLT templates?
http://xsltunit.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upcoming Schema languages tutorial (registration open):
- July 7th (Portland, OR) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K27A527A4
- August 4th (Montreal, Canada) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U28A217A4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
