• To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>,Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Subject: Re: limits of the generic
• From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 12:23:11 -0400
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <77163636536.20020928133320@j...>
• References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020928072413.05180ec8@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020927194520.00bcae40@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020927194520.00bcae40@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020927180018.04398a18@n...><5.1.0.14.0.20020928072413.05180ec8@n...>

At 01:33 PM 9/28/2002 +0100, Jeni Tennison wrote:

>However baroque, it has to be said that the rules made XPath 1.0 very
>easy to use. It may seem baroque to implementers, who have to delve
>into the details, but to users XPath 1.0 appears to "just work". The
>same cannot be said of XPath 2.0.

I think this is something forgotten in many of the arguments and 
development cycles of recent technologies. The implementers are far fewer 
than the users. Ease of implementation, IMO, should take a back seat to 
ease of use. That something may take a software developer a few extra hours 
is no reason to make it harder for the author every document produced using 
that technology.

Ann

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>

• References:
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: limits of the generic
    • From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@j...>

• Prev by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Next by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Previous by thread: Re: OT: Frank Lloyd Wright (was Re: limits of the generic)
• Next by thread: Re: limits of the generic
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread