- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 14:32:08 -0800
- To: Irene Polikoff <irene@topquadrant.com>, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
On 11/11/14 12:33 PM, Irene Polikoff wrote: > We should strive to use and align, as much as possible, with existing syntaxes, approaches, etc. If they can't support the requirements and can't be easily extended to support the requirements, only then it makes the argument for something completely new. It would be to cavalier not to have this as a criteria. Align, yes, but pre-limit to, no. If we took that attitude, we'd still be programming in COBOL. My experience is that people gravitate rather quickly to new technologies that they find fit their needs. Otherwise we wouldn't have Java, Ruby, Python, Ruby-on-Rails, iPython, PHP, JS.... and on and on. So before rejecting ShEx *because* it is new, we should look at what we are trying to do, and the best way to do it. "New" is not an a priori reason for rejection. kc -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2014 22:32:42 UTC