Subject: Re: [xsl] except (was: Keys with duplicates should be simple) From: Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:12:21 +0000 |
On 3 Feb 2014, at 16:07, Michael Kay <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 3 Feb 2014, at 15:23, Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> No thought then for the occasional user of the language who doesn't >> use it often enough such that he has barely acclimated to the basics >> much less the quirks. > > You can tell us we got it wrong, but you can't tell us we didn't think about it. Why do you imagine the process takes so long? An agonizing amount of debate goes into some of the most "trivial" issues like the naming of functions and operators. That's of course because there are many points of view and therefore, by definition, there is no answer that will be right for everyone. I'm sorry that on this occasion you were one of the people that the decision wasn't right for. > And by the way, comment and feedback on the new specs that are still under development will be highly appreciated and valued. Comments on specs that were frozen 7 years ago, by contrast, are not really much use to anyone. As programmers, we all have to live all the time with decisions that it's too late to change even if everyone agreed. No one likes the syntax for comments in XML, but no-one is going to change it. Michael Kay Saxonica
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] except (was: Keys with du, Michael Kay | Thread | Re: [xsl] except (was: Keys with du, Ihe Onwuka |
Re: [xsl] except (was: Keys with du, Michael Kay | Date | Re: [xsl] except (was: Keys with du, Ihe Onwuka |
Month |