> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 2:16 PM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc:
>
> That said I'm sure you've probably gone over the many ways
> that concerns about xslt 2.0 dependencies is so much
> irrational FUD in some other post in the past, can you send
> me the link so I don't have to google all over for your
> response?
I haven't because no one has given any technical reasons for their
complaints besides dislike of W3C XML Schema or the fact that
W3C XML Schema has a lot more primitive types than they expected. There
really isn't much of a response one can make to comments like those.
> As an aside you seem to be of two minds on this
> irrational FUD, as you characterize it, as you claim that
> aside from that you have not seen any valid issues brought
> up, implying that you also see it as something of a valid issue.
Negative perception of the language regardless of whether it is founded
on fact or not is a valid issue.
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Mincing your words is a good thing because you may have to eat them
later.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
