Subject: Re: [xsl] second implementation of XSLT 2.0? From: "M. David Peterson" <m.david.x2x2x@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:54:26 -0700 |
On 11/23/05, Jim Melton <jim.melton@xxxxxxx> wrote: > At 11/23/2005 07:29 AM, Elliotte Harold wrote: > > Not so. It's dangerous to make broad generalizations, particularly when > the maker is not part of the environment about which the generalizations > are being made. > > Actually, as dangerous as you suggest it to be the generalizations are quite easy to make when your someone like Elliotte and have a keen understanding of both the process, the technology, and the politics involved in such environments. You're not as much of a mystery as you seem to suggest. Oh, and I not only fully back Bob's comments but would add to them that you really should avoid coming across as a snotty know it all that 'mingles' with the common folk only when it seems necessary to place them in proper pecking order. I don't know who you are and as such I am not saying this with some sort of vengeance... I simply read your comments and began to laugh at the level of arrogance that was portrayed. Sorry, insult my friends colleagues and I will ensure they know that I stand behind them 100% as the work they do is a lot more significant than it seems you realize. -- <M:D/> M. David Peterson http://www.xsltblog.com
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] second implementation of , Jim Melton | Thread | RE: [xsl] second implementation of , Michael Kay |
[xsl] Finding and promoting footnot, Trevor Nicholls | Date | RE: [xsl] Finding and promoting foo, Haarman, Michael |
Month |