- From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 14:05:58 -0500
- 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 UTC