donpark at quake.net
Mon Feb 8 00:02:30 GMT 1999
Tim Bray wrote:
>And as regards the namespace spec, I think that some people on this
>list are substantially full of shit, and are wilfully refusing to see
>how simple it is because it does not meet their own design prejudices.
>I think that spec is *way* better than the XML spec.
I am disappointed that you chose to follow this line of thinking. I
happened to like the XML spec and found the Namespaces spec confusing. Is
this because I am substantially full of shit? Maybe so.
Even ignoring your seemingly habitual verbal abuse, I find it disconcerning
that you seem to treat genuine feedback from the readers of your specs as
some sort of legal arguments or logic problems which you are obligated to
punch holes in.
Please listen to what we are trying to say rather than how we say it. If
some of us seems to criticize your works harshly, it is because we would
like to believe that we are not entirely stupid. If we do not understand
you fully, should we think that we are too stupid to understand or that your
are speaking too high above our heads? Most of the people who took part in
this thread of discussion took the middle view: we took as much as blame as
possible until we were full of it and then shovel to you the rest.
Are we full of it? You are damn right we are. I am pissed because I am
full of it. If you are having trouble holding your share, that is too bad.
Not really at my best,
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev