Re: [xsl] qualitative decline of xsl-list questions (was Re: Date)

Subject: Re: [xsl] qualitative decline of xsl-list questions (was Re: Date)
From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 11:28:47 -0500
Quoting Mike Brown from another thread:

Satish, L. Gnanendra wrote:
> The UserManual.XSL has a parameters which has to have a trademark
> symbol(#153):

*Some* HTML user agents allow one to illegally use &#153; to refer to
codepoint 153 of the windows-1252 encoding, but this is wrong for two reasons:

1. The number in a numeric character reference in XML or HTML is, by
definition, a character's Unicode codepoint. Unicode code point 153
corresponds to a legacy control character: SINGLE GRAPHIC CHARACTER INTRODUCER
(SGCI), which is not what you want.

2. Although not enforced, HTML's SGML declaration disallows Unicode characters
in the range 127-159, in addition to those that are disallowed by XML. You
cannot have them in a conforming HTML document, not even by reference.
[etc.]

I think one reason for the poignancy, and pointedness, of Mike's remarks kicking off the "qualitative decline" thread is that this decline in quality happens at the same time as XSLT and related technologies are maturing into something that requires a considerable investment to master, at least in their deeper aspects. The degree of expertise demonstrated in Mike's post on the (tm) character quoted above (expertise in HTML, SGML, character encodings and Unicode, XML, XSLT, and how they all fit together) -- and (I dare say) the skill in exposition he demonstrates -- is really astonishing. Yet the questioner and the rest of us all profit from Mike's understanding, just for the asking. (Even those of us who know the answer may benefit from seeing how he explains it.) Seriously: how long do you suppose it would take most newcomers to web pages or programming to figure out such fine points as these on their own?

Nor do I single out Mike's post because it's his -- hardly. Rather, it is not untypical of this list, and similar expertise and sensitivity are demonstrated daily by more people than I can name (but you know who they are). For a corporation to develop such a team of experts would take years, and it wouldn't be cheap. Were it possible at all.

I encourage readers to reflect on this not because we regular posters to this list don't feel we get our due (I can't speak for others, but I for one am proud of XSL-List's reputation for excellence, and think it's deserved: I can't recount how much it's taught me), but because it speaks to Mike's point. Although we get our fair share of recognition (and thanks again everyone -- nothing is too much thanks to those of you who post solutions to XSL-List and other public forums), one does wonder sometimes (at least judging from the odd post) whether everyone who scans these lines understands and respects how valuable is the knowledge and experience that is shared so freely here. If you're smart about it, you can save yourself untold time, pain and expense by simply posting a question here -- and (at least in the small kinds of wizardry that are XML) have a shot at accomplishing the impossible.

Being smart about it means (partly) not passing time, pain and expense onto the shoulders of those who've offered to help, but rather taking responsibility yourself for doing the work you set out to do. But this is obvious to those who know -- and will remain obscure to those who don't (who don't take the trouble). A Disciplina Arcani can be an open secret. (If you've read this far, chances are you get it, or may eventually. My guess is the lamer posts come from people who don't *read* the list either; I'm afraid the problem goes deeper than a CS degree can fix.)

The bottom line? Continue to be available to those receptive to what you have to offer -- and don't sweat the small stuff. Just because some folks have a hard time getting what moves the whole thing forward, doesn't mean it has to stop.

Cheers,
Wendell


___&&__&_&___&_&__&&&__&_&__&__&&____&&_&___&__&_&&_____&__&__&&_____&_&&_ "Thus I make my own use of the telegraph, without consulting the directors, like the sparrows, which I perceive use it extensively for a perch." -- Thoreau


XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list



Current Thread