Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----Original Message----- > From: bry@i... [mailto:bry@i...] > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 2:16 PM > To: Dare Obasanjo > Cc: xml-dev@l... > > 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.
|
