• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXML)
• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 09:57:28 +0000
• In-reply-to: <32878.68.242.36.87.1104909093.squirrel@68.242.36.87>
• References: <1104886621.4359.241.camel@borgia> <32878.68.242.36.87.1104909093.squirrel@68.242.36.87>
• Reply-to: davep@d...

On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 02:11 -0500, hhalpin@i... wrote:
> I think this entire discussion risks going into very unproductive ways.
> Instead of trying to drag up random anecdotes and argue via emotion, let's
> notice a few things.

I think the anecdotes provide the example which support your arguments.
The other human side of this which neither of your approaches address is
the interface specification. Given height as an int for a function
parameter, I test it presuming metres, you test the generation, assuming
kilometres, we have fully tested type safe software.

 Interface specifications|testing IMHO provide as much trouble as any.
And I guess this applies to XML as well as to Any Ada system.

ps
Amelia, I think your sig line should go down as a classic ;-)
(The managers lament)

-- 
Regards, 

Dave Pawson
XSLT + Docbook FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• References:
  • RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXML)
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXML)
    • From: hhalpin@i...

• Prev by Date: The Airplane Example vs XML 2.0 with data-typing
• Next by Date: Re: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXML)
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: The Airplane Example vs XML 2.0 with data-typing
• Next by thread: RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: StreamingXML)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread