Re: Generators [was Re: QT4CG meeting 136 draft agenda, 30 September 2025]

Thank you,
I will follow your guidelines.

Thanks,
Dimitre.

On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 1:03 AM Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:

>
> What is meant by "if it were presented the right way", Dr. Kay? I know you
> are quite busy, but just expanding a little bit on this via email/DM would
> be really valuable.
>
>
> I would suggest three things:
>
> First, make the proposal technically complete and unambiguous so it is
> clear exactly what changes are being proposed to the specs.
>
> Secondly, motivate the changes with convincing examples and use cases
> showing what problems can be solved using the new feature that are
> difficult to solve any other way. Remember the distinction that marketing
> people make between features and benefits. A feature of a walking frame
> might be that the height is adjustable: the benefit is that the user is
> less likely to suffer a fall. When you say:
>
>
> *One of the benefits is that it provides the feature of Lazy (deferred)
> evaluation as a standard, available and guaranteed capability.Another
> benefit is that a generator provides a uniform collection-datatype*
>
> you are describing features, not benefits. You need to describe convincing
> examples of problems that can be solved using these features.
>
> Thirdly, try to cut out the antagonising rhetoric: "Do we think about the
> end users of XPath at all?".  You need to understand that questioning
> people's motivation and commitment automatically puts them on the defensive
> and makes them less likely to see the the merits of what you are proposing.
> You won't be able to counter people's objections to a proposal unless you
> understand and respect those objections; if the objections arise because
> people don't understand what you are proposing at a technical level, then
> the onus is on you to explain and educate.
>
> Michael Kay
>
>