[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
RE: [xsl] second implementation of XSLT 2.0?
Subject: RE: [xsl] second implementation of XSLT 2.0?|
From: "Michael Kay" <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:12:41 -0000
Actually, M. David, Jim's a really nice guy. By all means disagree with him
(I often do), but don't make it personal.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M. David Peterson [mailto:m.david.x2x2x@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 30 November 2005 05:54
> To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Elliotte Harold
> Subject: Re: [xsl] second implementation of XSLT 2.0?
> On 11/23/05, Jim Melton <jim.melton@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > At 11/23/2005 07:29 AM, Elliotte Harold wrote:
> > Not so. It's dangerous to make broad generalizations,
> particularly when
> > the maker is not part of the environment about which the
> > are being made.
> Actually, as dangerous as you suggest it to be the generalizations are
> quite easy to make when your someone like Elliotte and have a keen
> understanding of both the process, the technology, and the politics
> involved in such environments.
> You're not as much of a mystery as you seem to suggest.
> Oh, and I not only fully back Bob's comments but would add to them
> that you really should avoid coming across as a snotty know it all
> that 'mingles' with the common folk only when it seems necessary to
> place them in proper pecking order. I don't know who you are and as
> such I am not saying this with some sort of vengeance... I simply read
> your comments and began to laugh at the level of arrogance that was
> Sorry, insult my friends colleagues and I will ensure they know that I
> stand behind them 100% as the work they do is a lot more significant
> than it seems you realize.
> M. David Peterson