Subject: Re: [xsl] XSLT/XPath 2.0 (was "Identifying two tags...")|
From: Dan Holmsand <holmsand@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:09:20 +0200
Specifications and standards are not intended to be textbooks or good exposition. Just try reading the ANSI/ISO C++ Standard. It is darn good as a specification, in that it is (generally) straightforward to tell if a C++ compiler conforms to the Standard; but it would be a dreadful way to learn to program in C++.
The language of specifications is necessarily complex and specific. I don't think that their use of language is contrived, gratuitous, or a sign of some pretension to erudition. The comparison to Martin Heidegger isn't particularly apt, other than to say in both cases that the writing is dense and strives to be precise. If you see that as obfuscation, you may be missing the point. If you think that makes specifications hard to read, you're not alone, brother.