W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > January 2003

RE: Use Case list -- section 9

From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 14:05:58 -0500
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20030103135810.038c2008@ncmail.datadirect-technologies.com>
To: "Kay, Michael" <Michael.Kay@softwareag.com>, Ian Davis <ijdavis@softbase.math.uwaterloo.ca>, "public-qt-comments@w3.org"@w3.org

At 06:53 PM 1/3/2003 +0100, Kay, Michael wrote:

>For what it's worth, I think the explanation for this is simply that the use
>cases needed rewriting, because of the disappearance of the "=>" operator,
>and no-one volunteered for the task in time for the publication deadline.

I don't think that's accurate. I would have gladly done that if the Working 
Group had asked me to. At the time, we had decided not to support 
cross-document references or to use the => operator in XQuery, and the WG 
had also decided that we didn't like the structure of the data or find the 
particular set of queries realistic. We felt that a better set of use cases 
for references would be desirable.

Developing this set of use cases, however, was beyond what there was time for.

>I think there has been some tendency to orient the use cases to features of
>the language that need to be illustrated, rather than user problems that
>need to be solved, but I agree with you that in principle, we should have
>rewritten the use cases to show how they could be solved without the dropped
>"=>" operator.

I don't think the old use case REF was a good illustration of user problems 
that need to be solved. It wasn't realistic enough to be useful. And that's 
one of the things that axed it as a use case. Perhaps we should have waited 
until we had a better set of use cases before killing the old one...

Jonathan 
Received on Friday, 3 January 2003 14:06:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:23 GMT