Re: About Constructions rules

Subject: Re: About Constructions rules
From: Matthias Clasen <clasen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 17:44:51 +0200
Didier said:
> So, let's imagine for a moment that we no longer look behind but in front of
> us and that in front of us there is a new spec to write. let's call it
> DSSSL-2. In this context:
> a) the query construction rule is not part of Jade or OpenJade and therefore
> we do not have feedback from concrete implementations to help us decide if
> it is good "as is" or need some improvements. The original specs where done
> with the best knowledge of that time, but we learned a lot since then.
> b) because it is not implemented we can implement it but this time with some
> knowledge gained with years of experiences.
> 
> Still looking in front of us, imagine now this scenario. A guy crazy enough
> to give free time to his colleagues wants to implement a new feature: the
> query construction rule. This guy learned from his colleges, listened to
> them, their needs, the limitations of actual constructs, etc... In fact,
> there is actually several crazy enough people with names like Avi, Matthias,
> Dave, Peter that think that things could be improved and improve them!
> 

Perhaps it is time to remove the query construction rule from this discussion.
As has already been pointed out, it has a very clear definition in the current
standard. And I strongly believe that we should keep the focus of OpenJade 
development on more complete implementation of the standard we have. 

This shouldn't stop you from discussing possible new construction rules for a
possible DSSSL-2; we can even do experimental implementation in OpenJade under 
the -2 flag. Just don't call it query.

Matthias 

-- 
Matthias Clasen, 
Tel. 0761/203-5606
Email: clasen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mathematisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg


 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist


Current Thread