- From: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@tech-know-ware.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2008 23:02:58 -0000
- To: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
----- Original Message From: "Michael Kay" >> At the risk of upsetting people, why do we use the word >> "tableau" when most people would use "table"? To me, this is >> what I call gratuitous pomposity. > > Gratuitous pomposity? Nonsense, just charming eccentricity. As you didn't include an exclamation mark at the end (or smiley - arghh) I'll assume this is a serious comment rather than a joke comment... There's a place for charming eccentricity, and the XML schema spec isn't it. It's a complex spec described in over complex (pompous) language. Eccentricity might be OK for gurus that spend their entire working day picking through the fine details of the spec. It may provide them some light relief. But for the jobbing programmer who has to learn all about schema in as short a time as possible it just gets in the way. In short, I find nothing charming about this eccentricity! My 2 cents, Pete Cordell Codalogic Visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/ for XML C++ data binding
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2008 23:03:17 UTC